Waste

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they believe that waste is the most difficult environmental issue facing the country after climate change; and what action they are taking to tackle the problem.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, since the Government's waste strategy was published in May 2000, there has been increasing recognition of the need to tackle the growing amount of waste that we are producing in a more sustainable way. The Government have set demanding statutory targets for the recycling and composting of household waste for each local authority, increased the landfill tax and consulted on a system of tradeable landfill permits in order to achieve the diversion from landfill required. We also set up the waste and resources action programme to help to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I think that he would agree that at no time is the ever-growing mountain of waste so obvious as it is at Christmas. In the Government's waste strategy, they accept the need to break the link between economic growth and the production of waste. What are the Government doing about the increasing amount of packaging on all goods? We have moved so far away from the paper bag for, for example, fruit and vegetables, to plastic trays, plastic and mixed packaging, which makes recycling increasingly difficult.
	What are the Government doing to create a better market for recycled goods? Green glass, for instance, has barely any market. While we may feel better—and I hope that we all will—I hope that we accept as we throw our green bottles away that it is a shame that there is no market for them.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly the most important thing is to reduce the rate of growth of waste and, as the noble Baroness said, to break the link with economic growth and prosperity. Waste reduction is top of our hierarchy in the waste strategy. We are also encouraging the reduction of waste by making packaging recyclable or reusable and by trying to engage industry in reducing the amount of waste created in production.
	As for Christmas, there will clearly be a lot of household waste to dispose of. I recommend to all noble Lords who receive a present that they dispose of the packaging in the special paper waste disposal facilities now provided by most local authorities. Likewise, most local authorities have a return bank which allows them to dispose of Christmas trees effectively.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister will be aware, as are we all, of the considerable amount of litter left on our streets and in the countryside. Will the Government consider reactivating a strong "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign to inculcate that message to young people, who often cause a lot of the litter?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, litter is clearly a matter of some interest to your Lordships. There was a full debate on litter last night, to which my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton responded. I refer the noble Lord to her detailed reply. Litter is a major problem on our streets and we want to encourage both local authorities and the public at large to take seriously their responsibilities in that regard, whatever their age.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I have sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Having spent four hours last night wrapping Christmas presents, I wondered whether there was a green alternative. Will my noble friend tell us in more detail of what the national waste strategy consists?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the waste strategy, which, as I said, was launched in May 2000—last month there was a waste summit bringing together all those involved—establishes a hierarchy of how to deal with waste, starting with waste minimisation and working through reuse, recovery, recycling, composting and energy recovery, right down to disposal by landfill, which is the least preferred option. We are trying to inculcate knowledge of that hierarchy in all commercial, private and public users. We have set statutory targets for local authorities to increase their recycling rates.
	We have substantially increased the funding for waste management, which will rise by £1.1 billion during the period of the spending review. The permit system for landfill will also help to reduce our dependence on it. We must reduce landfill from its current high level—much higher than in most other European countries; about 80 per cent of our waste is disposed of in landfill—to our target figure of 35 per cent of what it was in 1995. That will take several years, but that is the essence of the strategy.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given that the targets set are pretty high, that we are already falling behind them and that waste is growing by roughly 3 per cent per year, do the Government have any other measures in mind, such as incentives for citizens at home to do their best to reduce waste, or to encourage waste minimisation? That is where the target needs to be directed.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards waste minimisation, as I indicated in my supplementary reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we are working with the public sector, commercial enterprises and households to reduce the amount of waste produced in the first place. We are doing that on both an industry and a local basis. As regards local collection, we are giving local authorities substantially greater resources for waste management, which will enable them to differentiate types of waste, and therefore to maximise the amount of household waste, for example, that can easily be recycled.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, what is the Government's policy on waste incineration? Is the Minister aware that under modern systems of waste incineration, electricity and useable heat can be produced with minimum atmospheric pollution, yet despite that there is often local opposition to new incineration plants?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is indeed opposition, but it is important to point out the facts, as the noble Lord attempts to do. Incineration is about half way down the hierarchy and in many cases it is the most appropriate form of waste disposal. It is substantially better than landfill. Where there are proposals for new incinerators, and where the local planning authority has to consider them, it is most important that it recognises and communicates to the public that the degree of emissions from such plants are at a minimal level in terms of current technology. It is therefore important that incineration plays its role.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, having increased the landfill tax, what thoughts do the Government have about the increased amount of dumping that is taking place around the country? Dumping, not only in country areas but in towns, is a big problem. How do the Government balance the increased charges on landfill with the amount of extra dumping in the country?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we want to reduce illegal dumping and fly-tipping and the use of landfill. It is therefore more appropriate to put a more economic price on the use of landfill.
	We are encouraging local authorities to deal with waste that is disposed of illegally and part of their additional resources will enable them to do that. I agree with the noble Baroness that in some parts of the country dumping is a serious problem and local authorities are being given the resources to tackle it.

Overseas Development: UN Target

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to accelerate progress towards meeting the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product in the official overseas development programme; and when they now expect to reach that target.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are fully committed to reaching the United Nations target. They have set out plans for the next three years to 2003-04 and, as those show, development assistance as a proportion of GNP will rise from 0.33 per cent in 2003-04, up from 0.26 per cent in 1997. That is a rise of 45 per cent in real terms. In his Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor emphasised his commitment to ensuring further substantial increases in development assistance.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association. Does my noble friend agree that when at Christmas we discuss the inconvenience of waste and the consequence of affluence in our society and rush from one highly enjoyable party to another, it is a good time to remember that many people in the world still do not know what it is to have a glass of safe water to drink and that 1.2 billion people live in absolute poverty?
	Does my noble friend accept that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have widespread support in all they are doing to fight and eradicate poverty and to resist unwise military commercial deals which may undermine the process? Does my noble friend further accept that if only we had a timetable for reaching 0.7 per cent, instead of merely the aspiration, we would in a meaningful way increase the leverage on the other nations we want to join us in the campaign?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Whitty would thank me for saying that waste was not important. Our debates on the subject show that many noble Lords think it is important. As regards whether there should be a target rather than an aspiration, as I indicated in my Answer the Chancellor, in his Pre-Budget Report, confirmed that in the next spending round the Government will not only raise significantly the amount of overseas development assistance but also its share in national income. That is a good way of expressing a target.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, does the Minister have before him figures which indicate the amount of development aid that is devoted to family planning and population policies? If not, perhaps he would let me have such figures in the foreseeable future.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, I do not have those figures in front of me. I shall certainly let the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, have them and I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I appreciate the tireless enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on these matters. Does the Minister nevertheless accept that the sheer volume of overseas official aid is often a poor trigger for sustainable development and wealth creation? In fact, in many instances, it has had the reverse effect. Does he further accept that when one looks at total resources going to developing countries, and includes private investment flows, the figures for the recent past look much better. They are near the target of 0.7 per cent and were even higher in the early 1990s. Does he further agree that the Chancellor's recent pronouncements on the need to increase our aid efforts and his talk of a Marshall Plan, include some reliance on overseas private investment? Therefore, if the figures are already looking quite good, what is new?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that the original United Nations target included both private and public assistance. However, arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said and as the World Bank confirms, it is important not to tie public overseas development assistance to commercial investment. The World Bank has produced a figure which shows that official development assistance is 25 per cent more efficient if it is not tied to commercial programmes. That has been a significant part of the Government's policy on ODA.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the instrument on arms sales to third countries agreed in December 1993 by the OSCE, is there not a condition that states will not sell armaments to countries where such sales would constitute a material diversion of the resources available for development? Furthermore, is not the proposed sale of the £28 million military air control system to Tanzania a flagrant breach of that obligation? Will the Government think again and try not to set an example that would serve only to hinder the universal observance of an agreement which has stood us in good stead?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know no more about the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred than I have read in the newspapers. No official decision has been taken on the matter.

Disposal of Fridges and Freezers

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What advice they are currently giving to consumers in respect of disposal of freezers and fridges in light of the requirements of EC. Reg. No. 2037/2000 being applicable from 1st January 2002.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my department has published an information leaflet for consumers advising them how to dispose of their old fridges and freezers safely. The leaflet has also been posted on my department's website and has been widely circulated electronically to retailers, including small businesses dealing in white goods, trade associations and local authorities. We have asked retailers to place copies of the leaflet in their shops and to give them to customers buying a new fridge.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he afford further comfort to consumers on this matter by advising the House how far advanced plans are to provide a recycling plant to deal with the problem? Can he further advise the House on the availability in the UK of appropriately trained mechanics qualified to remove all the CFCs from fridges and freezers?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the problem is not the availability of appropriately skilled labour, but rather the availability of a dedicated plant to remove CFCs from the foam within fridges. Part of the problem has been that, until a few months ago, we did not believe that the European directive required the removal of CFCs from the foam as distinct from the coolant contained in fridges. As yet there is no capability available in the United Kingdom for delivering the removal of foam. Therefore, there will be a burden on local authorities in particular as regards the storage of fridges and freezers until such facilities come on stream. We are in contact with a number of potential investors in such plant. The expertise is already in place because plants of this kind are already operating on the Continent.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the decision that the regulation should apply to domestic fridges was first made in February 2000 at the Environment Council. That decision was confirmed in June 2000 when the regulation was approved. The regulation is clear and the Government cannot wriggle out of the obligation by suggesting that they did not understand it. Paragraph 16.2 states:
	"Controlled substances contained in domestic refrigerators and freezers shall be recovered and dealt with as provided for in paragraph 1 after 31st December 2001".
	Why has it taken the Government 18 months since the regulation was first approved to issue guidance and to set standards for the recovery of this material? Was it simply that the Government forgot about the problem, forgot what they had agreed to, did not understand what they had agreed to, or were simply negligent? Is this not an instance where the Government should stop trying to defend the indefensible? They should hold up their hands and say, "Sorry, we made a mistake. We are human, after all. We made a botch of it".

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in this festive season I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Government are human. However, this is a complex matter. It is certainly true to say that some serious clarification has had to be made as regards exactly what was meant in the regulation. I am due to respond to a Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I shall give the full sequence of events in my Answer. However, the fact remains that, as late as February of last year, the Commission circulated a table of clarification on what the directive meant which stated that it did not cover foams. That clarification was in line with the intentions of the directive at that time.
	However, subsequently and after much badgering by the British Government to have further clarification, in June of this year the European Commission provided a final interpretation which indicated that the regulation did in fact require the recovery of controlled substances from insulating foam. Having received that clarification, the Government have attempted to deal with retailers and with local authorities.
	I do not minimise the fact that there is now a problem. Virtually all retailers have ceased to take back old fridges, which has been the traditional way of disposing of around 40 per cent of the market. There is therefore an additional burden on local authorities, as well as an additional danger of fridges being dumped. The Government and local authorities are trying to deal with the issue. We have announced that additional resources are to be made available to local authorities to do so.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, the Minister waved a leaflet which contains guidance on this matter. What does it actually say?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it explains that local authorities are responsible for removing fridges. They can charge for that service. Some do and some do not. As regards the disposal of an old fridge, the appliance can be taken to a local civic amenity site for disposal free of charge or it is possible to arrange for the fridge to be collected. As I have said, some local authorities will charge for that service. The leaflet further explains that the new law will come into force from 1st January 2002, stating that the CFCs and HCFCs in old refrigerators and freezers must be removed. Of course, newer fridges will not contain such material. Generally speaking, it is the older fridges that are being disposed of.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to the electrical equipment manufacturers' section of the Federation of Electronic Industries. Is the Minister aware of a time-bomb ticking away in Brussels that is wonderfully entitled the WEEE directive? It will bring forward further responsibilities as regards the disposal of waste electrical equipment. Is the Minister confident that the balance of responsibility between the consumer, the retailer and the manufacturer has been set correctly in the directive? Are the Government better prepared for the WEEE directive than they were for the disposal of fridges?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think so. We are aware of that body and we are consulting with the various trade associations, including the one to which the noble Lord has referred. The WEEE directive will not come fully into effect until 2004. Therefore, we have time to prepare retailers and manufacturers for the move to what in effect will be producer responsibility, although clearly it will have an effect on distribution as well as on price.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of a major retailer of white goods. Will the Minister step aside from his brief and recognise the problem to be faced here? Does he accept that the Government's response is totally inadequate, given both the size and the urgency of the problem that he has spelt out?
	The noble Lord mentioned the problem of the disposal of fridges. Did the noble Lord see the BBC news report last night which stated that, over the past year, the fly-tipping of waste has already increased by 30 per cent as a result of the landfill tax? This regulation will add considerably to the problem. Does the Minister accept that, given that no recycling capacity is available in the UK, the only short-term way to deal with these fridges if they are not to be fly-tipped is to have legally licensed storage space? Does he agree that the figure of £6 million that he mentioned in regard to aid for local authorities is totally inadequate when one bears in mind that an estimated 3 million fridges will be returned next year? There is no way in which retailers can take back that number of fridges without storage facilities. Retailers have no way of creating such storage space unless they choose to break the law and set up unlicensed sites which are not legally licensed and approved. There is no room for the fridges.

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, should not the Government grasp the problem and put in place the capacity for these fridges to be stored?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have accepted that there is a problem as regards the disposal, dumping and storage of fridges, but I do not think that a whole new system of licensing for storage arrangements would be necessary. I believe that we shall have on stream the capacity to deal with the problem. The plant concerned is not very complicated; it is simply that no such plant is currently available in the United Kingdom. In the meantime of course a burden has been put on local authorities and other storage facilities. The money that we have allocated to local authorities is to meet that immediate problem. If the difficulties persist, then clearly there will be a further funding issue for local authorities which we will address. However, we have dealt with the immediate problem.
	I certainly accept that this is not the tidiest of situations and that there are dangers involved. However, we have made local authorities aware of the problem and provided information to retailers. It is now important for consumers themselves to be informed.

Developing Countries: Aid Programmes

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What commitments they have received from other donor countries to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal for a 50 billion dollar "Marshall Plan" for the developing world.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor has argued for a significant increase in development aid from all donor countries and international institutions to address the long-term causes of poverty in the poorest countries. It is right that there is a full discussion between donor countries and the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations as we prepare for the Financing for Development Conference at Monterrey in March 2002.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Perhaps I may press him further on the air defence deal for Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in relation to an earlier Question. Does the Minister agree that that undermines this Marshall Plan's objectives and the Government's new commitment to humanitarian aid to Africa?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, cannot press me any further. I told the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I do not know any more than I have read in the newspapers. No official decision has been taken.

Lord Rea: My Lords, the Questions today appear to be alternating between the issues of the elimination of waste and the elimination of poverty—which, I suggest, is in itself a form of waste. Does my noble friend agree that any aid programmes to the developing world would be greatly assisted by the more important step of improving the terms of trade? Can he say whether the Government agree with the suggestion arising from the World Trade Organisation meeting at Qatar that subsidised agricultural exports to the developing world should be eliminated, thus preventing the ruination of millions of traditional farmers in the developing world?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government agree very strongly with my noble friend. Indeed, that was one of the themes of the international conference at Doha. It is clear that it is not only the size of development assistance that matters but how it is made effective. It must go to low income countries with sound economic management; it must support a strategy designed and led by the national government, which adds to the point made by my noble friend Lord Rea; and, as I have said before, it should be dissociated from the award of government contracts.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister explain why there is a later divergence between the amount committed by the international community over the years and the amount achieved in cash terms?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a percentage of GNP is a moving target in itself; as it goes up it becomes more difficult to keep up the proportion of ODA as a percentage of GDP. International comparisons are difficult. Most countries produce their figures in financial years rather than in calendar years and it is sometimes difficult to make the comparison. On the whole, we do fairly well. The OECD percentage was 0.22 per cent; the G7 average is 0.19 per cent; ours this year is 0.31 per cent.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords—

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, would the Minister—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we take the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, first, and then the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we can get both questions in.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House from where the money will come if it is not from other government departments or from raising taxes?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the spending review 2000 allocated a budget to the Department for International Development. That figure is not quite the same as the amount of ODA because only about 90 per cent of the DfID budget counts as ODA. However, there is additional spending—from, for example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—which counts as ODA.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the generosity, the altruism and the idealism that inspired the Marshall Aid programme during the post-war period, prompted mainly by the United States of America, was one of the reasons for the stability and prosperity of western Europe in the post-war period? Does he further agree that a similar sense of idealism is now needed for the reconstruction of civil society in countries such as Afghanistan and Cambodia, which have suffered so grievously from conflict? Does he specifically agree that the need to clear land mines in those countries and other war-torn countries is a major developmental issue; that without the removal of those land mines it will be impossible for land to be tilled and used again in the future; and that civilian populations will continue to sustain major injuries as a result of those land mines?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree very strongly with the noble Lord about the altruism expressed in the Marshall Plan. That is exactly why the Chancellor used that analogy in his speech on Monday. As to land mines, the noble Lord is right—you cannot get agriculture going again unless they have been cleared. This is a problem which appears to be getting worse rather than better in some parts of the world.

Lord Elton: My Lords, how can the Minister say it becomes more difficult to reach the target as our GDP goes up. The amount of money one has to spend on necessities remains the same. As one gets richer one has more to spare. It should become easier and the target should be raised.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that point. All I am saying is that £100 million is roughly 0.01 per cent of GDP. As GDP goes up, two things happen: first, it needs more than £100 million to reach the percentage; and, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, rightly said, there is more money available to do it. That is what the Chancellor is committed to doing.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rooker, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill repeals subsections (2) to (5) of Section 5 of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, together with a related reference in Section 3 of that Act. The effect will be to continue in force without limit of time the provisions for banning orders on complaint and summary measures relating to detention and referral to the court contained in the Football Spectators Act 1989.
	Before setting out the importance of the Bill, it will be helpful if I briefly remind your Lordships of the events that prompted the Football (Disorder) Act last year.
	Noble Lords who have studied the phenomenon will know that football disorder has been associated with the English domestic game since it became a mass spectator sport at the end of the 19th century. The domestic problem has not gone away, but it has been marginalised by an array of legislative and other measures. English stadia now feature among the safest and most secure in the world. That is why the primary concern in recent years has centred on the behaviour of English football fans when they travel to matches overseas. There is a legacy of disorder, which includes serious outbursts in Luxembourg in 1977, Turin in 1980, Basle in 1981, Oslo in 1981, Paris in 1984, West Germany in 1988, Italy in 1990, Sweden in 1992, Amsterdam in 1993, Rotterdam in the same year, Dublin in 1995, Rome in 1997, Marseilles in 1998, Glasgow in 1999, and Copenhagen, Brussels and Charleroi in 2000. Each incident has damaged our national reputation and together they have resulted in many thousands of English arrests and deportations.
	Prior to the adoption of the 2000 Act, a number of legislative measures were in place. Each successive Act adjusted and expanded the measures available to the police and the courts in tackling the evolving character of football hooliganism. The provisions made a significant impact on the domestic hooligan front. However, those measures designed to combat English football disorder overseas were less successful.
	In the build-up to Euro 2000, orders could only be imposed by the courts following conviction of a football-related offence. The law made a clear and in many respects artificial distinction between domestic and international banning orders. There was also provision for the courts to impose orders on the basis of convictions overseas if the requisite international agreement and legal measures were in place.
	A number of such agreements had been put in place but the option was not proving fruitful, largely because host authorities continually preferred to arrest and deport offenders rather than pursue costly and often time-consuming court proceedings. This approach may be frustrating but it is also understandable. The reality is that football disorder usually involves very low level crime and disorder, the cumulative impact of which far exceeds the constituent offences.
	The Euro 2000 football championship in Belgium and the Netherlands provided strong evidence of why the erstwhile measures were flawed and why a new approach was required.
	In preparation for Euro 2000, the Belgian and Dutch authorities organised a comprehensive and highly sophisticated security operation. Maximising international police co-operation and minimising the risk posed by England followers were the key twin objectives. The United Kingdom provided the utmost co-operation. Our policing and other preparations were the most extensive ever for an overseas tournament. Ultimately, however, the effectiveness of those preparations was constrained by the legislation of the day, which limited the number of hooligans who could be prevented from following England overseas to around 100 individuals.
	In spite of the extensive precautions, English fans were still involved in serious disturbances in Charleroi and Brussels. The measures put in place were effective to the extent that only one of the 965 England followers arrested during the tournament was subject to a banning order imposed following conviction on a football-related offence. However, subsequent police checks revealed that 40 per cent of those arrested had convictions for offences of violence or public disorder, though not necessarily connected with football.
	Inevitably, only one of the 965 arrested was subsequently convicted of an offence arising out of the disturbances. That was disappointing, as UK preparations for the tournament included negotiating international agreements with both the Netherlands and with Belgium which should have enabled convictions for offences committed in either country to be deemed football-related offences for banning order purposes.
	Your Lordships will recall that the disorder caused by England fans at Euro 2000 generated a great deal of criticism and concern. The host countries, other European countries and the international football authorities understandably felt that the United Kingdom had to do more to protect host cities and citizens from English hooligans. UEFA threatened to expel the English team from Euro 2000 if there were any further outbursts of disorder involving English supporters.
	In the light of the disorder and the information collected about the perpetrators, legislative change was essential in order to demonstrate to governments, police forces and the public across Europe and beyond that the United Kingdom was taking effective steps to prevent English troublemakers travelling to matches overseas; prevent English football being banned from European and world competition; provide the police and courts with extensive powers to remove from the scene greater numbers of supporters with a track record of violence and disorder; remove the ongoing anomaly of supporters misbehaving overseas in the expectation of avoiding any punishment while abroad and any consequences on their return; and, finally, to deter potential troublemakers from misbehaving and, importantly, to deter others from getting involved and transforming minor incidents into major disorder.
	A radical new approach to tackling the menace of hooliganism was required, and new and radical measures were introduced. The 2000 Act introduced four important changes to the existing body of legislation. There was widespread support on both sides of this House and in another place for the first two measures. These abolished the distinction between a ban on attending matches at home and overseas so that when a court imposed an order it had the effect of the previous domestic and international banning orders combined and made passport surrender during specified periods an automatic condition of a banning order. A safeguard was built in to enable the court to waive the condition in exceptional circumstances and the power of the Football Banning Orders Authority, or the police in urgent cases, to grant exemptions was retained.
	Your Lordships will need no reminding that the Act included two more controversial measures. Section 14B empowered magistrates to impose banning orders on individuals in circumstances other than on conviction of a football-related offence. This complaint process requires the police to satisfy the courts that the person before them has caused or has contributed to violence and disorder and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of an order will help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches.
	Sections 21A and 21B provided a different route to seeking an order on complaint during control periods—that is, the five-day period prior to an overseas match involving the England or Wales national team or an English or Welsh club side.
	Section 21A empowered the police to detain an individual for up to four hours (six with the authorisation of an inspector) where a police officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular person has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and believing that imposing a banning order on that person will help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. The purpose of the detention is to enable the police to decide whether to issue a Section 21B notice.
	A Section 21B notice requires the individual to appear before a magistrates' court within 24 hours and, in the mean time, the individual is prevented from leaving England and Wales. The magistrates' court will then treat the notice as an application for a Section 14B banning order on complaint.
	Many of your Lordships understandably felt that Section 14B and Sections 21A and 21B went too far. The Government did not share that perspective but it was a genuine and reasonable view. That is why the 2000 Act limited the life-span of the measures; and that is why the Act stipulated that a report setting out the impact of the Act must be laid before Parliament before the powers could be renewed by affirmative instrument for a further 12 months.
	A report covering the period 28th August 2000 to 11th June 2001 was duly laid before Parliament on 20th June. It concluded with an assessment of the impact of the Act during the period concerned. The headline findings made impressive reading. There had been no significant disorder since Euro 2000, notwithstanding a number of potentially high-risk matches involving England and our successful club sides competing in the Champions League and in the UEFA Cup. Fan behaviour had noticeably improved. The number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches overseas had increased significantly. Governments across Europe had welcomed the Act as a demonstration of the commitment of the United Kingdom Government to tackle the menace of hooliganism before it left these shores. The legislative gaps exposed by the disorder during Euro 2000 had been closed; and, importantly, the Act was being applied in a targeted and proportionate way, just as the Government had intended.
	In July this year, this House and a Standing Committee of another place each approved a resolution extending for a further 12 months the life-span of the measures in question. A statutory instrument, the Football (Disorder) (Duration of Powers) Order 2001 came into force on 28th August. There is no provision for further renewal of the provisions. They will lapse unless the relevant sections of the 2000 Act are repealed.
	The impact report laid before Parliament as a prerequisite to the affirmative instrument suggested that the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 had made an immediate and positive impact on the behaviour of English football supporters, and that Section 14B and Sections 21A and 21B had quickly become important weapons in the anti-hooligan arsenal.
	Parliament was asked to renew the powers because it was considered essential to have them in place for the high-risk England match against Germany in Munich on 1st September. Let us make no mistake as to the importance of that game. The Munich match was a major challenge to the 2000 Act. The risk of serious disorder was real. There was a strong possibility that we would witness a new chapter being added to the annals of mass disorder that had shamed our national reputation and wrought untold damage and despair on the streets of numerous cities around Europe. I am pleased to say that the Act withstood the challenge.
	To assist your Lordships' deliberations, and those in another place, copies of a supplementary impact report on how the Act was used and what it helped to achieve in Munich were placed in the Library and in the Vote Office on 11th October. The report usefully outlined why the Germany game was high risk and why an extensive multi-agency security operation was necessary. The objective was to minimise the number of troublemakers travelling to Munich and, importantly, their influence on other fans. Close Anglo-German police co-operation was essential—maximising the impact of the powers we are today discussing even more so.
	Those noble Lords who follow our national game will be aware that those objectives were achieved to an unprecedented degree. There were sporadic clashes between rival thugs, but the numbers involved were relatively small and the Munich police were able to contain the disorder. The anticipated mass disorder did not materialise. There have been no fresh entries in the long catalogue of major disorder involving English fans abroad and no further blemishes on our national reputation.
	The German media and police have placed most of the blame on German hooligans provoking their English counterparts, but it would be naive to pretend that a small minority of English thugs were anything other than willing participants. The problem of English hooliganism has not gone away. There is still work to be done, but the strategy now in place appears to be working. We have come a long way since Euro 2000.
	Overall, 201 people were detained or arrested. Most of them were German nationals. There were 38 English arrests for various public order offences. Those arrested have all been released, though four have been charged and asked to pay a deposit in lieu of fine pending court proceedings. Policing styles vary across Europe and it would be unwise to draw conclusions simply on the basis of arrest statistics.
	As I said, the 2000 Act was a response to events during Euro 2000 when there were 965 English arrests, mass deportations and much criticism of the behaviour of English supporters. Just 16 months later, we are talking about 38 English arrests connected with a very high risk match and of the good behaviour of the English supporters. That behaviour has been praised in the German and foreign press. That is in stark contrast to the headlines during Euro 2000.
	The supplementary impact report provides a more detailed account of what transpired in Germany and the role of the legislation in minimising public order problems. It also rightly pays tribute to the Football Association for its bold new englandfans initiative.
	The Act is working. It has proved an effective but proportionate response to the undoubted menace of English football disorder abroad. The facts speak for themselves. The total number of banning orders now amounts to 866. Some 780 of those prevent travel to matches overseas. That represents an increase of 250 since the Munich match and an increase of 698 since the 2000 Act came into effect. Of the 698 orders imposed since Euro 2000, 605 followed conviction for a football-related offence while 93 were in accordance with the Section 14B complaint procedure.
	What of the police use of the summary powers contained in Sections 21A and 21B? Since the 2000 Act came into effect, 115 people have been detained under Section 21A. Of those, 99 were issued with Section 21B notices preventing travel and commencing banning order proceedings. The remaining 16 were released to travel. Of the 99 court proceedings prompted by Section 21B notices, 63 orders have been imposed, 24 refused and 12 cases remain adjourned.
	Genuine fans have nothing to fear from the powers and much to gain. During the passage of the 2000 Act, the then Home Secretary and I, together with the rest of his ministerial team, stressed that the powers that we were seeking would be used only as they could best be used and not arbitrarily. We also stressed that personal appearance would not provide grounds for a Section 21A detention and that an isolated expulsion, unsubstantiated by accompanying evidence of misbehaviour, would not provide grounds for seeking a Section 14B order. Adequate safeguards were drafted into the legislation. As I argued then, the measures had to be proportionate. They had to strike a balance between national and international interests and the individual rights and civil liberties of those seeking to attend football matches. That must also always include the civil liberties of host populations and well behaved English supporters, who are greatly intimidated by the misbehaviour of fellow supporters.
	There are other less obvious benefits for ordinary fans. The steps taken to prevent trouble-makers leaving these shores have an impact on how England fans are policed overseas. There is less chance of fans being treated on the basis of their reputation rather than their behaviour. The Munich police, aided by a UK police team in the city, adopted a targeted and low-friction but early-intervention approach that has been praised universally by independent supporter groups. The overwhelming majority of fans were able to enjoy their trip to Germany and avoid the trouble-makers.
	What of those who misbehaved in Munich? The onus now is on the police to collate all available evidence of violence or disorder by England fans in Munich and, if that evidence is strong, to ask the courts to impose banning orders on the perpetrators. That would not be possible if the measures that we are discussing today had not been renewed by statutory instrument and it will not be possible in the future if we do not repeal the time limit by virtue of the Bill.
	There is now compelling evidence for maintaining Sections 14B, 21A and 21B on the statute book. Those measures, which have withstood a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 14 months, will be lost if we do not pass the Bill. There is no suggestion that the problem of English football violence overseas has been solved for ever. That was demonstrated in Munich. In many respects, the phenomenon is a symptom of wider social problems. The Government are committed to tackling those problems on a number of fronts. However, legislation has a key role to play. The two measures under consideration today have quickly become essential components of the UK's anti-hooligan strategy. To lose them in August next year would send out an entirely negative message to our European partners, undermine the English and Welsh anti-hooligan strategy and weaken the power of the police and the courts to act against the thugs. It would also be seen as an encouragement to hooligans to resume the pattern of repeat offending overseas at a time when England is preparing to embark on its Euro 2004 campaign.
	The Government believe that the measures are tailored, proportionate and effective as a response to English football disorder abroad and that they strike the right balance between national and international interests and individual civil liberties. However, it is right that they are subject to careful scrutiny. That is why they were initially introduced for a trial period. They have successfully negotiated that trial period and we believe that they should be enshrined in legislation. However, we are mindful that many of your Lordships are of the view that the provisions need to be tested for a longer period. I do not interpret that hesitation as reflecting any reluctance to tackle the menace of English football hooliganism overseas—quite the contrary. I know that all of your Lordships are committed to minimising the activities of the thugs who have brought shame to our national game and national reputation in the past.
	In the spirit of openness and conciliation that has accompanied the passage of the Bill, the Government are prepared to table an amendment in Committee to extend the lifespan of the Section 14B, 21A and 21B measures for a further five years, whereupon they will either lapse or be renewed without time limit. We have opted for five years because that will enable the powers to be in place for the 2006 World Cup in Germany and, importantly, for the 2008 European Championship qualifying matches, which will take place while the measures undergo a further bout of parliamentary scrutiny. Moreover, the Government will ensure that further impact reports are submitted to Parliament before the question of renewal is resurrected and at ad hoc periods during the next five years. On that understanding, it gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Lyell: My Lords, this is quite like old times. The Minister may remember that, just two years ago, he and I fought happy duels. I am happy to declare the same interests again. I have my card with me. I am honorary patron of a club in Scotland, which the Minister will know well. I hasten to add to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that, in the dark this morning, I pulled out a particular tie that has caused him some trouble in the past. I assure the noble Lord that his next visit to the ground in question will pass off without any influence and that things should go well.
	I am fascinated that the Minister made such a powerful speech. I wonder for whose benefit it was made. The Bill is so small that I can lift it with my little finger. I think that it has about eight lines, apart from the provisions on expenses. Perhaps it has been introduced for the benefit of the great football authorities around the world.
	I think that even the Minister might admit that, in recent weeks, football's reputation has been tarnished in both the print and the electronic media. However, like your Lordships and "honest fans"—as the Minister has described them—I believe that football is usually a channel in which to make friends and enjoy oneself. It is an opportunity to make friends and to visit foreign countries.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to my queries in writing if he is unable to do so today. I noted that, in the ninth minute of his speech, he mentioned an "English or Welsh club side". Section 1(1)(a) of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000—which, in addition to the Bill, is the main legislation we are considering today—states that the banning orders will
	"combine the effect of domestic football banning orders and international football banning orders".
	Am I mistaken in believing that international football banning orders deal only with English and Welsh national sides, or do they deal also with particular club matches given the reputation of the fans or a perceived risk based on prior knowledge? I think that the Minister has made it clear that the Bill's provisions are based solely on geography.
	Some estimates put the individual cost for British fans attending many or most of the matches at next year's World Cup in Japan and Korea—assuming that England progresses to the second, third or later knock-out stages—at not much less than £6,000. I wonder whether the average fan will be spending such a sum, and therefore whether the Minister's wise words will apply to that tournament. However, he was quite right to say that the provisions of the Football Spectators Act 1989, the updated 2000 Act and the Bill may well be needed for the 2004 and the 2006 tournaments, which will be much nearer our shores.
	I believe now, as I did when we considered the 2000 Act, that police and experts—such as the noble Lords, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Imbert, the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who was in the Chamber a short time ago—are able to spot trouble at ports and airports and thereby nip it in the bud, so that many of the legislative powers are not necessary.
	Perhaps the Minster will let me know in due course, possibly in the new year, how many banning orders have been made since 2000. He gave us a vast number of figures, but how many banning orders have been made since 2000 as a result of what he described as Section 21A of the 1989 Act? Furthermore, how many of the rather irritating orders to stop fans at ports or airports for up to six hours have been made? I thought that I heard him say, in the 19th minute of his speech, that 205 banning orders have been made since September 2001, when England played and won in Munich. Perhaps he will confirm that figure, which startles me considerably. What led to such a number? Was there an outburst of some sort? Nevertheless, I hope that the lessons learnt from 2000 and from closed circuit television have been incorporated in the Bill.
	Will the Minister also tell us how a banning order can be lifted? Does the fact that a young fan marries indicate that he has matured? Although it is unlikely that a fan who is the subject of a banning order in 2002 would go on to Japan after spending a holiday in the Mediterranean, the situation might well be different in 2002 or 2004. How will a banning order or removal of a passport affect those who wish to go on holiday?
	The Minister and the Government have been kind enough to provide Explanatory Notes to the Bill, paragraph 11 of which gives some interesting figures. It states:
	"The Lord Chancellor's Department estimates that the maximum attributable court costs amount to £572,000. This is to cover the cost of any additional magistrates' court hearings (£150,000), compensation costs paid under section 21D (£375,000) and civil legal aid costs (£47,000)."
	Do those figures refer to fans' appeals against what they perceive as unjustified detention? Is the compensation to deal with complaints arising from the Bill? It is a considerable sum. How many people do the Government think will be affected by those provisions?
	I apologise for taking so long, as many other speakers—many of whom are experts and have a greater interest than I do in the particular game—wish to participate. I should, however, be most grateful for a reply to my queries either now or later, and I wish the Minister and the Bill well.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the background to the legislation. He and I also have something in common: we both support Brighton and Hove Albion. For those who are interested, the team is doing very well indeed.
	The Bill deals with a procedure known as a banning order made on complaint, which gives police powers to forbid a person from attending football matches and to require him to attend a police station when matches are held outside England and Wales. The Bill provides further powers to prevent people from leaving the country while police seek a banning order on complaint.
	Although the Bill makes further provisions that I support, the events of the past few weeks demonstrate our inadequacies in eradicating the ugly feature of racism in our football. The Bill is designed to tackle supporters; in no way does it deal with players who are thugs and hooligans and damage our country's sporting reputation.
	We are privileged to have as a Member of this House the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who has done so much to kick racism out of football. He has done a public service in working with all the sports bodies to highlight the necessary action, and we thank him for that.
	I should like to ask the Minister why the central plank of the Government's Football Task Force on Racism has not been implemented? Should the Bill not place an obligation on all clubs to implement it? Despite all the good work, the reality is that supporters moving through ethnic areas stir up racial tension. We seem to be powerless to deal with the perpetrators, who are aided and abetted by extremists from the National Front and the British National Party. The insecurity and fear generated in our ethnic communities is the ugly face of football, caused by its so-called supporters who have brought the game into such disrepute.
	My main concern is about recent events at Leeds United Football Club and our inadequacy, even with the Bill, to deal with them. Every part of the criminal justice system, the club, the manager, the Leeds board and the football governing bodies must share responsibility for those events.
	In October 2000, I tabled a Question asking for the reasons for delay in the trial of R. v. Bowyer, Duberry, Hackworth, Woodgate and others. I accepted the learned Clerk of the Parliament's advice at the time that the matter was sub judice and that the Question could not be asked. I was concerned about the time lag in bringing the case to trial. On 25th October last year, I asked Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of comments by Mr Justice Henriques, they believed that the timetable for a criminal trial should be determined by the employment commitments of the accused and the club.
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was gracious in replying that the timetable for a criminal trial is set by the judge at the plea and directions hearing. In fixing the trial date, the judge takes into account the venue for the hearing, the time estimate and submissions by the parties. Such decisions are made by the judiciary in their own independent sphere and may not be called into question.
	The learned judge issued a press release justifying his decision. That did not tally with information that I received from the Crown Prosecution Service. I wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service and perhaps I may quote from the letter which I received. It stated:
	"The Crown Prosecution Service was surprised by the statement by Mr Justice Henriques, issued on 9th November 2000, that the first reason for the delayed trial date was that 'prosecution papers had only recently been served on the defence'".
	The committal papers were served on the defence at the end of May 2000, some four months before the plea and directions hearing. No criticism was levelled at the prosecution during the plea and directions hearing and neither did the judge cite delay by the Crown when giving his reasons in open court for fixing a trial date in June 2001, a delay of more than six months.
	I was further told by the CPS that there was a relatively small amount of material to be served by the prosecution as additional evidence. The nature of that evidence was outlined to the judge at the plea and directions hearing. He stated that, in his opinion, that evidence was a minor aspect of the case which should not lead to any delay in the preparation of the defence case. And yet we know that the convenience of Leeds United Football Club played a part in that delay. Justice delayed is justice denied.
	The issue of the timing of the trial was first raised by the defence in a skeleton argument prepared for the plea and directions hearing. That document suggested that if a trial were to be held during the football season it would have serious implications for Leeds United Football Club.
	We all know that the first trial collapsed and we now have the outcome of the second trial. Those trials raise important matters which require an investigation as to why the criminal justice system behaved in the way it did and why there is nothing in the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill to prevent that happening again. I believe that all agencies, including the Leeds United Football Club, should be investigated and the lesson should be learnt. I ask the Minister whether the Government, for the sake of the good name of football, will mount a searching inquiry into that matter.
	This was a savage gang assault on Sarfraz Najeib, who nearly lost his life. The issues of concern are evidence for us all to see. Why was the definition of racial attack, so successfully used in many investigations in this country in the past, ignored? Why did the CPS fail to establish that it was a racially motivated attack? Was the judge justified in delaying the first trial? Is an all white jury appropriate for a fair trial of that nature? Does the sentence meted out justify the evidence and seriousness of the assault? Will the Football League examine the way in which Leeds United Football Club has behaved in handling that matter? Should not the Government amend the present Bill to ensure that not only the so-called fans but players who perpetrate such vile crimes are included in the measures? Why has Leeds United Football Club, which is shedding crocodile tears, done so little to help the victim, Sarfraz Najeib? Our sympathy must go to him and his family. The young man nearly died. His family is terrified and their confidence is now permanently destroyed.
	The entire justice system, the football club but, more important, all of us who hold civilised values failed to protect that family. We need a thorough investigation and appropriate legislation to deal with that ugly face of British football. Nothing less will do. In the meantime, we should thoroughly deplore the actions of the Leeds club, its manager and its chairman for the way in which they seem to be handling the matter. Surely a life is worth more than a few pieces of silver. Let us hope that the Minister will examine the legislation to ensure that any disorders perpetrated by supporters or players receive the strongest condemnation of all decent systems.
	In the meantime, I know that the FA has set an example by not selecting Woodgate and Bowyer, and it is right that it should stick to those high standards.
	In conclusion, the Bill does nothing to deal with the thugs who masquerade as football players. I call them the bin Ladens of British football. Is it not possible to ask them to report to the police station at 3 p.m. every Saturday afternoon? Is it not possible to take away their passports so that they cannot travel abroad as British footballers? The last thing we want is those thugs and bullies representing us in a great game which we invented.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to make a contribution in this important debate and to see my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in his place because he, in his role as deputy chairman of the Football Trust, together with his chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, did so much to bring about a climate of change in our national game.
	First, I must declare an interest as I currently chair both the Football Foundation and the Football Stadia Improvement Fund, which in many ways follows the part that the Football Trust played in combating football disorder. In fact, my involvement in that field of football disorder regrettably goes back more than 20 years. During that period, I experienced many examples of football legislation in the other place. But it is surely tragic that so much parliamentary time has been spent during those years addressing the negative aspects of our national game. Here we are again, taking up parliamentary time to address the issue of football disorder which heaps so much discredit on our national game.
	I recall vividly the feeling of shame and disgust as a genuine football supporter—I must say of Derby County—and indeed as chairman of the all-party football group, at the despicable actions of those purporting to be fans but who were basically no more than thugs dressed up as supporters. The horrors of both Hillsborough and Bradford caught the headlines, although those events were terrible disasters and not at all due to hooliganism. However, it was an ever-present factor in the minds of spectators, the public and the police.
	I am proud that in the other place I led the campaign to fight the plans to bring in an identity card system for football supporters proposed by the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. That measure would have surely branded every law-abiding football supporter as a potential criminal and could have caused enormous damage to the culture of the game.
	Fortunately, football, especially our domestic football scene, is now in a much healthier state. That is in large part due to the sterling work previously undertaken by the Football Trust, particularly through its enormous investment in stadia and ancillary facilities which made genuine fans feel that they were being treated like human beings and paying customers instead of cattle being taken to market.
	Much credit must go also to the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, of which I am proud to be patron, and the Football Supporters Association for doing so much good work in keeping the fans' agenda at the forefront of the debate.
	From a security point of view, the investment programme for closed circuit television surveillance systems and the introduction of all-seater stadia requirements went a long way to isolating hooligans from the inside of our stadia. They could suddenly be readily and easily identified and could no longer hide in the shelter of the vast dark terraces.
	That investment programme is now being taken on by the Football Stadia Improvement Fund, launched along with the Football Foundation in July last year by the Prime Minister. Both organisations are funded by the FA Premier League, the Football Association and the Government and are committed to securing the best possible future for our game at all levels, whether participating or watching. It is both a great honour and a great challenge to be chair of both bodies. I must publicly add that I am extremely fortunate to be able to rely on the skill, experience and judgment that my chief executive, Peter Lee, brings to the table.
	Domestically, additional reasons for changes for the good are that we are able to tackle some of the unsocial problems in our game, thanks to the introduction of legislation against racist chanting and touting measures that I first outlined in Labour's charter for football when I was shadow Minister for Sport. The Football Foundation continues to help fund the Kick It Out campaign and supports its work. However, it is somewhat depressing that reports of some of the most disgusting racist chanting have re-emerged in the past few weeks. They are signs, if I ever saw them, that we need now to tighten up that legislation.
	On the specific point of this Bill, clearly we still have much action to take to clean up the image of our game abroad. That means tackling the small minority of so-called "fans" who travel abroad with the specific intention of causing trouble.
	I have followed carefully the debate in the other place. As the Minister may know, at the time of the original Bill, which I broadly supported, I had concerns about the impact on civil rights. I urged caution and review. I was therefore greatly pleased to see that the Government introduced a sunset clause so that we could all review the Act in operation. I am satisfied that the review of this legislation, which the Government have provided, demonstrates that, while it takes time to settle down, the evidence is that it has helped to make a breakthrough in preventing trouble in both Munich and Paris, as the Minister has pointed out.
	So it is clear that I support the successful passage of this Bill. Furthermore, I applaud the efforts that the Football Association has made in re-launching what was previously known as the England Members' Scheme as the englandfans project, as the Minister has already pointed out.
	One of the key purposes of the re-launch was to make supporting our national team more accessible to sections of the public that have not previously felt entirely comfortable with the image and the atmosphere that has surrounded the team in recent times. Now there is a membership which has a greater proportion of women and children than previously and more than a quarter of the membership is completely new. It is still early days, of course, but the signs are looking good. Cautious optimism is probably the phrase which seems most appropriate at this stage.
	Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the treatment of football fans is fraught with dangers and must be handled with extreme care. Genuine supporters, who we must remember represent the vast majority of those who attend matches, must not be cast in the same role as hooligans. It is more than unfortunate that they are so often portrayed as such in the press.
	I remember well the incident a few years ago when Manchester United visited Galatasary and were treated disgracefully by the authorities there. I actually led a delegation of parliamentarians to the Turkish Embassy to protest at the way genuine fans were treated by the Turkish police. I would be very alarmed if any incidents such as that led to people facing orders, rather than in fact receiving full support from the British Government in addressing how they have been treated.
	Finally, I repeat that I support the successful passage of this Bill. I look forward to reviewing its impact when it becomes law.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, at the beginning I would like to reiterate the general tenor of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. At times it appears that in football there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. For example, the conduct of Mr Lee Bowyer would see him done down under this Bill several times over.
	It is worth remembering that when the Football (Disorder) Bill was first discussed a significant number of noble Lords from all sides of the House were deeply uneasy, not as regards its admirable purposes, but at some of the means which it took unto itself in order to address those purposes.
	Perhaps I may say why we were unsatisfied at the end of a long debate and thought that it was a bad measure in libertarian terms. It began with the fact that this is one of the new hybrid offences and a modern introduction to our law. I do not lay that particularly at the Government's door, because I believe that the previous government started the process of introducing civil offences at the outset which attracted civil tests of proof. If an order made in pursuit of that civil offence was breached, that would lead to a criminal conviction being recorded and criminal sanctions being attached. We now have before us such an example.
	I also remind the House that anxieties were expressed at the time of the original debate as regards human rights legislation. Those anxieties remain. It is interesting that a case was reported in The Times last August involving a hybridity of proof leading to what anyone would call criminal sanctions where the human rights legislation was said to apply. We shall return to that point at later stages of the Bill.
	I turn to another aspect of what is now the Act which continues to worry me at least and, I am sure, all those who spoke originally. That is the arbitrariness of this measure. It is odd how, from my seat, the legislation appears arbitrary, giving far too much power to individual police officers and yet the Government hold that very feature of the Act as a virtue. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for that because I am sure that if one is in authority it is a virtue. He referred to it as a "targeted measure". It is targeted but on a wholly discretionary and wholly unpredictable basis by individual policemen throughout the country. There is simply no doubt that if the Act were to be applied in the manner which I was brought up to believe such criminal legislation should be applied—that is to say, evenly and without discretion and fairly and without distinction between classes and conditions of men and women—I believe that everyone in this Chamber would be available for one of the banning orders.
	Let us make no bones about it: one does not have to be convicted of anything. One needs only to contribute—that is a wonderfully weasel word—to disorder. One might say, "That is all right because disorder is a frightful thing". It is until one looks at the definition of disorder in this Bill. Under the definition I would be "had up" a thousand times over. It is a rude gesture. Will the good Lord Bassam say that he has never given a "V" sign to anyone in any circumstances? I doubt it. A gesture, a word or a placard or anything which is insulting through any of those media, is considered and defined as disorder under the Bill.
	Those of us who spoke against the measure originally remain unassuaged. In our view the measure is far too widely drawn. It follows a tendency in legislation which we saw recently in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. That again was far too widely drawn. It had excellent purposes, but some of us are more than a little anxious about some of the outcomes. It is no good depending on all police and magistrates behaving with the utmost wisdom, balance and proportionality. That is not the real world. It is no good the Minister saying that the Government are giving indications to the police and others that they must act with proportionality and discretion. I believe that at one point the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the issue of proportionality had been written into the Bill. It has not been written into the Bill. I should be consoled if it were. The noble Lord may say that the Human Rights Act will require that it is implied in the Bill. We take no consolation from that.
	The evidence the Government produce to support a five-year continuance seems to me to be extremely tenuous. In the first place one has to reflect on the fact that the panic which led to the Bill being rushed through in the summer of 2000 was itself an extraordinary piece of tabloid exaggeration. Noble Lords may remember that there was a single piece of television footage—I accept that it was alarming—of "yobbos" throwing chairs and tables at one another and passers-by. However, I do not remember seeing any other footage. The piece was repeated ad nauseam. We find that of the 965 people deported, only one has been convicted.
	I am bound to say that we may have acted like mad dogs in the summer of 2000 but I do not want to go on acting like a mad dog. I am not impressed by the number of banning orders—93—which have been issued under Section 14 since the 2000 Act came into effect. Only 63 orders have been issued under Sections 21A and 21B and 24 have been refused. Of the no doubt tens of thousands of cases for the police to choose from, 40 per cent have been thrown back at them by magistrates. I should like the Minister to indicate whether any other criminal prosecution has such a high failure rate. I doubt that.
	All in all, I remain unconvinced by the legislation, not as regards its intent—I emphasise that—but as regards its effect. We are far too inclined to think that we achieve anything by passing fancy laws in this House. In my view it would be far more effective if we had a few more policemen on the ground and fewer Acts on the statute book. In any event they are so jolly complicated that you have to study them for a day in order to understand where they lead you. That is a problem for the police and magistrates.
	I, and I am sure all noble Lords, are grateful to the Government for at least offering a review of the measure after five years. We are grateful for that. However, that will not stop me at any rate from saying that the whole thing should be delivered into quiet oblivion. But I again thank the Government for that concession.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, this is the third occasion on which I have directly followed the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in speaking on this subject. I agreed with every word that he said at the beginning of his speech about the outcome of the trial at Hull Crown Court. I also agreed with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on that matter. I shall discuss that further at the end of my remarks.
	I do not intend to make a long speech as this is a short Bill. I take as my text the words of Sven Goran Eriksson which I heard at the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award the other night. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, can vouch for the accuracy of my quotation as he sat next to me. Sven said:
	"England football supporters are beautiful wherever they go".
	I wish, I wish.
	I strongly supported the original legislation on which the Bill we are discussing is based, the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, and the subsequent Football (Disorder) (Duration of Powers) Order which we debated on 12th July this year, as I believed that they would make a significant contribution towards tackling the menace of hooliganism committed abroad by football fans—mostly those attached to the England national team.
	There is no need for me to go over the events which gave rise to the original legislation a year and a half ago. As noble Lords will remember, that was a response to the appalling incidents of disorder in Brussels and Charleroi during the Euro 2000 championships held in Belgium and Holland. But those who have longer memories, such as my noble friend Lord Pendry and I, recall with horror some of the scenes which we witnessed constantly through the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, starting with the riot in Luxembourg in 1977. I am most grateful to my noble friend for the generous comments he made about my time at the Football Trust. I in turn pay tribute to the enormous contribution he made to the welfare of football over the years when he was in the other place, and will make now that he is in this House. I am delighted that he is in this House.
	I remember saying in July that if Parliament had not passed the Football (Disorder) Act and one more incident of disorder involving England fans had occurred after Euro 2000, the national team would have been thrown out of all FIFA and UEFA competitions and our clubs would have been excluded from European competitions. In that debate I paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton for leading a working party on football disorder, on which I served, and for taking the legislation through the House. That tribute was deserved and I am pleased to repeat it, for up until then he was virtually the only Home Office Minister who had been able to make a real contribution to tackling this problem.
	Perhaps the most singular success of my noble friend's working party—which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Pendry—was to persuade the Football Association to abandon the England Members Club and replace it with a new official England supporters' club known as "englandfans"—fashionably spelt as one word and with a lower case "e", but that is how these things are done these days. I have read the application form for membership and I am enormously impressed by the rigour of the inquiries the Football Association makes and its determination to enforce a code of behaviour which goes far beyond anything that it has ever attempted before. We can be fairly confident that if trouble breaks out at England matches abroad in future, it is unlikely to come from the official englandfans members.
	The need for this legislation to continue is, of course, that the criminals—both potential and convicted—who try to follow England will not be members of the official club and the exclusion and detention orders possible under the terms of this Bill will need to be used to try to stop them from travelling.
	One of the low points in the relationship between the football world and the former Conservative government was when the then secretary of the Football Association, Mr Ted Croker, in a meeting at No. 10 was unwise enough to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to "get her hooligans out of his game". Nearly 20 years on this Government have managed to achieve some success in that direction. But despite that there is still much that is wrong within football. I have referred before in this House to the reports published by the Government's task force, on which I served as vice-chairman. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said in his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who also served on the task force, asked a supplementary question of my noble friend Lady Blackstone during discussion on a Starred Question on 26th November. He asked:
	"Which government department is taking the lead with regard to the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report with regard to racism and people with disabilities? It appears from my inquiries that no one in any department has any awareness of the existence of the report or of its recommendations and no knowledge about who is implementing the recommendations".
	My noble friend Lady Blackstone replied,
	"On racism, my department will work with the Home Office to ensure that the report's proposals and recommendations are taken forward".—[Official Report, 26/11/01; col 4.]
	That is reassuring but I think my noble friend should be aware that despite considerable advances in recent years and general support for the "Kick Racism Out Of Football" campaign, there are still some appalling pockets of racism within the game.
	Last Sunday week the Observer newspaper reproduced an article written by a London-based Manchester City fan, who for obvious reasons wanted to remain anonymous, who went with a young relative and friend to City's match against Millwall at the New Den. The language described is too offensive to be repeated in this House, but every racist taunt imaginable was hurled at Manchester City players from racial minorities. The writer said that at half time he asked to be moved into the family stand for the second half and was told by a steward, "It's just as bad in there". The article continues:
	"She was right. I've been going to football for 40 years, barely missing a game home or away, and this is the worst experience I've ever had".
	The writer described how the six year-old girl in front of him led the racist chanting. The final sentence in the article read:
	"I was in Turin when the Italians abused Emile Heskey last year and the FA strongly and rightly condemned it. Why are they always silent on Millwall?"
	There can be no place for racism and xenophobia at home, for if it is tolerated here, it will reappear with violence and loutish behaviour when fans travel abroad.
	One of the most heartening features of the "Kick it out" campaign has been the involvement of players in it. That is wholly in line with the recommendations of the Football Task Force's third report, which dealt with footballers as role models and described how they should play an important part in serving and working with the community.
	Whatever one thinks of how well justice was served by the verdicts in the Leeds affray case, one wholly unacceptable feature stands out, that is, the behaviour of Lee Bowyer and his reaction to the disciplinary measures imposed by the Leeds United club since his acquittal. In another place, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has tabled two Early Day Motions on the subject. The second calls on the Football Association in no circumstances to include Woodgate in an England team and takes note of the message sent out to all the boys and young men who regard leading footballers as role models, namely, that if you are rich and famous, you can be a drunken, lying, violent lout who is able to get away with near murder. However talented those football players may be, their selection for England would send out the unmistakable message that all drunken, loutish behaviour of that kind will be tolerated. That must not happen. If it did, it would compromise much of what this Bill seeks to achieve.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I am very pleased that previous speakers took the opportunity of this debate to comment on some of the wider issues relating to football. Though we are talking about a short and specific measure, it can be seen only in the context of the problems facing football in general, the wider social issues that it involves and possible solutions to it.
	The Minister in his opening said that since it became a popular mass sport in the 19th century, football had always been associated with crowd problems. I strongly disagree. My memory of the 1950s is of extreme order in crowds much larger than football grounds can accommodate today and great good humour and tolerance among fans. I have a fond memory of being taken for the first time by my father, who was brought up in Liverpool, to experience the great rivalry between Liverpool and Everton. My father was a lifelong and true red supporter, but a great and fond admirer of the great Dixie Dean. Many of our problems concerning race and disorder should be regarded as late 20th century phenomena— partly due to a lack of respect and order and, in terms of this Bill, partly due to the ease and cheapness of international travel.
	This is the eighth or ninth measure introduced by Parliament in the past 20 years to attempt to deal with football violence. Some ideas have been good. Others, such as the passports idea of the early 1980s, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, not so good. I agree with my noble friend Lord Phillips that we should disabuse ourselves of any illusion that a magic legislative process exists for solving these problems. We need to address a whole range of measures.
	The Minister claimed a good deal of success for the Act. At one point I thought he was going to claim that it was because of the Act that we got the result in Munich, but he refrained from making that claim. As I said when we discussed it on the earlier occasion, there is always an element of elephant dust about an Act such as this. Your Lordships will know the story of the spreading of the elephant dust, when someone said, "There are no elephants for 600 miles", to which reply was made, "Well, it is very effective stuff, isn't it?" If the passing of an Act is followed by a period of calm and peace, there is a tendency to say, "That is because of our Act". As the Minister conceded, at present there is very little data to prove that the Act has had an impact. However, he is right to say that the data we have, such as it is, together with improvement in behaviour, suggests that it would be worthwhile to give further consideration to the continuation of the measure, to see whether it has produced these improvements.
	As my noble friend Lord Phillips indicated, the problem is that we always have to maintain a balance between civil liberties and the need to protect our national reputation and our national game. I still believe, as my noble friend does, that there was an element of panic about the initial measure, and I share his welcome for the offer of a sunset clause. So effusive was my noble friend's welcome that I begin to fear he is mellowing as we go through this process. However, we have not yet reached Committee stage, so we shall see.
	In considering this and related measures, those in football have to accept that football is not just a sport, not just a business. It is part of our social fabric. Those involved in it—the players, the management and the directors—have social responsibilities, in respect of which I would place the onus the other way round, on the directors, the managers and the players. Whatever the condemnation of the young men involved in the Leeds case—and they are rightly condemned—they are very young. There are much older, more experienced people, with far greater responsibility, who have not exercised proper control. We need to remember that football clubs take on youths as young as eight and develop them through various stages until they become the multi-millionaire popinjays that we see today. Those who guide them through those processes have to take a responsibility.
	I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, reminded us that not everything is bad. An excellent article was published in the Evening Standard on 18th December, listing what all the London clubs are doing in terms of social responsibility and initiatives—everything from Watford's travelling bus, to opening training grounds to visiting schools, to West Ham providing tickets for deprived Asian children. So it is not all bad.
	Compared with a decade or so ago, the thinking of football clubs has become quite revolutionary; and all power to those who are doing it. But it has to be part of a greater effort on the part of those involved in football to provide better training and education for footballers as they move through their stages of development, to take on board the kind of wider responsibilities that their privilege gives them. There needs to be a greater sense of social responsibility by directors and management. If I cannot convince them on the social scale, let me, as someone who advises commercial companies, tell them that it will not take long for their commercial sponsors, who pour millions of pounds into football, to work out that being associated with such a tarnished brand is not a good idea.
	So if it is not social responsibility that encourages them to clean up the image, pure self-interest should do so. We should build on what is already happening and have greater community involvement from the major soccer clubs. Most of them are trying but they have got to try a whole lot harder.
	Several noble Lords have discussed the fact that racism has not been eradicated. There are some positive points. It is excellent that, through football, some of our most articulate black sportsmen are moving into media and management and are becoming the voices and role models for minority communities. However, each one of them will tell stories of the abuse that they have suffered. A much tougher line must be taken in that regard and in relation to the behaviour of fans in general—the way in which their behaviour has deteriorated is very worrying.
	The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were at the "Sports Personality of the Year" award together. I am not so bold as to call the gentleman, "Sven" yet; I call him "Mr Eriksson". I was pleased that David Beckham got the award: as I said in the House Magazine this week, someone who believes in marriage, is a proud parent, does not smoke or drink and is professionally dedicated is quite a good role model for this generation. He also takes a pretty mean free kick.
	I shall not abuse the fact that we are at Second Reading by going on for too long. On 29th December, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, I shall be at Everton to see the game against Charlton with my two sons, who are 11 and eight. I want to be involved in the debate about the future of football because I want them to have as much enjoyment from the beautiful game as I have had. The building blocks for improvement are in place, but there are also dangers and threats. I am sorry that somehow the Government have become bedazzled with football without getting to grips with some of the problems. Perhaps if the authorities in football and the Government listened to their candid friends, such as the noble Lords, Lord Pendry, Lord Faulkner, and Lord Ouseley, we might deal with more practical problems. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, did in opposition. It was sad that he did not have an opportunity to carry through those ideas.
	Racism, violence and anti-social behaviour are not just failures of the travelling fans; they are part of a rottenness that has to be removed from English football. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will remind us, Scottish fans manage to travel abroad with some good humour.
	In Committee, we shall examine the civil liberties aspects of the legislation. We welcome the offer of a sunset clause. There are several more very positive ideas and progress could be made if football got away from its bunker mentality and listened to its candid friends. We cautiously wish the Bill well after we have had a chance to consider it further in Committee.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, has the noble Lord, who kindly referred to me, ever thought that the reputation of the marvellous young English footballer whom I admire greatly, and who has great success because he works so hard, is due not to his manager—a fellow Scot—or his club but his wife?

Lord McNally: My Lords, any reputation that I have is certainly due to my wife, so I agree with the noble Lord.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the type of hooliganism with which the Bill is concerned has acquired, as noble Lords know, the unflattering title of, "the English disease". It is allegedly said that our neighbours in the British Isles are with some justification not associated with that term.
	To convey what we have achieved so far, I recall that at the time of the Falklands War, when a military campaign was being fought 8,000 miles from home and Royal Marines were "yomping" towards Stanley, soccer hooligans were landing at Zeebrugge virtually naked and decorated in Union Jack woad. At the time, a Belgian friend of mine said that he had never understood the English and that he now understood them even less.
	As the Minister said, the climax to such behaviour came, as noble Lords are well aware, in the Euro 2000 matches, when there were appalling scenes at Brussels and Charleroi. The Minister drew attention to the ridiculous situation that whereas only one individual was charged, the police found that 40 per cent of those who were arrested had records for criminal behaviour. UEFA threatened England with expulsion from Euro 2000 and the British government's actions—or lack of them—were compared unfavourably with those that were taken in particular by the German police and the German football federation.
	It was as a result of the widespread criticism both at home and abroad that the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 came about. We have heard that it contains a number of stringent measures: a banning order to apply both domestically and internationally; the powers to confiscate passports; and wide powers to issue banning orders including, in certain circumstances, when no offence had been committed. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, spoke with his usual eloquence on that point.
	I give the Government credit for the Bill and pay tribute in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was closely involved in its preparation. I also take this opportunity to thank him for the help he has given me in connection with this Second Reading debate.
	The Bill was widely welcomed by, among others, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Football Association and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. We have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner, and Lord Pendry, about the other regulatory bodies that were involved. In my party's view, the legislation has, on the whole, worked well. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, drew attention to the fact that it was a panic measure. There was a certain urgency at the time, and there was a danger of it falling under the Dangerous Dogs Act syndrome. The results have been justified.
	Two particularly informative reports were issued under the chairmanship of, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The first report was on the Act's operation during its first 12 months and the second contained an update following Munich—the first real test came with Munich. The police operation to restrain trouble was, on the whole, a success and, as noble Lords know, 79 suspected hooligans were processed at British ports and airports under the new legislation, in the run-up to the game. Fifty-eight of those were prevented from travelling to Germany, 33 were given bans, nine have bans pending, 16 had their hearings adjourned and 21 cases were unsuccessful, meaning that the fans were free to go to the match. I think that it is fair to say that the clear England victory probably took some menace out of the situation but let us give the authorities—and the legislation itself—the benefit of the doubt and adjudge it a success.
	So much for the background. I turn to the Bill. Police powers were renewed for a further 12-month period in August 2001, and this Bill is drafted to extend the life of the measures beyond August 2002. In another place my party welcomed the broad aims of the Bill. However, my honourable friend Mr Dominic Grieve with the support of the Liberal Democrats drew the House's attention to the draconian powers posed by Section 14 and in particular Section 21. He pointed out that people were liable to be put through a process previously unknown in English law. I thank the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Phillips, for giving us the background to this kind of hybrid legislation.
	In his amendment, my honourable friend suggested a sunset clause limiting the provisions of the Bill to five years. I also draw your Lordships' attention to another point made in that debate by Mr Simon Hughes to the effect that the permanent enshrinement in law of Sections 14 and 21 would put up a sign that the English disease was indeed incurable and would give to the world a pessimistic, defeatist and permanent signal which we might well come to regret. However, the amendment was declined and defeated. I do not need to dwell further on that point since I am most pleased, as I am sure many noble Lords are, that the Government have now indicated that they will bring forward an amendment for a sunset clause of five years. The advantage is that it will not only extend the operation of the Act beyond the 2006 World Cup but that, significantly, any parliamentary consideration of either a further extension or of new legislation will also be postponed beyond it; and we will not have at that event the distraction of considering legislation while the World Cup is in progress. I note that the European championships in 2008 will probably coincide; but we cannot have everything.
	Noble Lords will take some reassurance from the fact that, a challenge having been brought in the High Court that arrests under the 2000 Act were an infringement under the ECHR, those arguments failed on all counts.
	I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and picked up by several noble Lords. I refer to the regrettable case of the two Leeds United footballers. The point about the case—it should concern your Lordships in the context of this Bill—was not that the injuries to a young Asian were caused by footballers but by very highly paid footballers. Let us imagine the effect on potential football hooligans such as we are dealing with in this Bill—it is not the hard core but those on the fringes, those who see these Premier League players as role models and heroes—who may be excused for thinking, "Well, if they can do that sort of thing, why can't I?"
	In its 12-month report, the NCIS states that people who travel to away matches want to be associated with that team and when they cause trouble they do so in some crazy belief that they are somehow fighting for their team. It states that that kind of loyalty is often one of the unedifying aspects of tribalism, and football organisations and clubs must accept their share of responsibility.
	The Leeds United Football Club has taken action against the two individuals concerned. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, of the implications if those players were ever to come near the selection process for the England team. The action of Leeds United Football Club is to be commended. However, it also highlights the need for clubs not only to work closely with the police in addressing hooliganism; they must keep control over the discipline of their own players both on and off the field. I hope that, in association with his colleague the Minister for Sport, the Minister will be mindful of that point in particular as regards racism.
	I have two other questions for the Minister. First, at the time of the original Bill it was suggested that it might be easy to go through Scotland in order to make trouble abroad. Will the Minister assure us that that has not been an inhibition in the operation of the Bill? Secondly, as the report from the National Criminal Intelligence Service states, hooliganism is being used as a cover for serious crime such as drugs dealing and counterfeiting. It is highly organised, often by men respectfully dressed in suits, collars and ties. Those individuals are expert in what one might call "working" the hooligan element. They make sophisticated use of mobile phones. In the recent debate in this House on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, we were informed that it is now possible to locate a caller on a mobile phone. Can I have the Minister's assurance that the authorities are now abreast of those sophisticated techniques and that they can be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill?
	We welcome the Bill and are grateful for the Government's move towards a sunset clause. We look forward to studying the amendments in Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in closing it is customary to say that it has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. This has been a wide-ranging debate. The Bill is a modest measure—a simple repeal. I have enjoyed all the contributions made in your Lordships' House today. It is almost invidious to pick out any individual because all speakers made telling and important points.
	Perhaps I may continue the round of tributes by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for his contribution, not only today but over a long period, towards improving many aspects of the sport. He has ensured that the quality of stadium facilities and the treatment of and respect for fans have been foremost in the minds of those who have some responsibility for the governance of the sport.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for his kind words, his never-ending contribution to football and his continued support. We share a great affection for Brighton and Hove Albion. My affection may be slightly stronger than his. While the club is not a paragon of virtue, it is taking great steps to tackle some of the issues which have been referred to. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made an important contribution, putting the positive side and referring to what many football clubs are doing. He placed that action alongside the behaviour of the Leeds United footballers and the difficulties in tackling racism that will face that club, those footballers and the football authorities. That issue has not gone away. We should not assume that legislation—the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—is the be-all and end-all. It does not provide necessary solutions but it provides frameworks and sets standards. That is what we have been seeking to do over many years with legislation regulating behaviour in and around grounds.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his witty contribution which was, as ever, to the point. I shall try to respond to some of the important questions he raised. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. His single-minded concentration on the fall-out from the Leeds United footballers' cases is right. We need to examine those issues long and hard. He may be right that there needs to be some further inquiry on how that fall-out will be managed, the implications for the game and for clubs which know that they have to tackle insidious racism. The noble Lord made an important point about looking at how the judicial process works. I undertake to ensure that those comments are reflected where they need to be reflected with regard to that case and its conduct.
	As regards the future, that is for the football authorities and the clubs. It is beyond the remit of this modest piece of legislation. I also want to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for his support. I am pleased, too, that our offer at this early stage of a five-year sunset clause on the Bill has been broadly welcomed.
	This has been a very illuminating debate. As I said earlier, while law will not solve all problems, I believe that this piece of legislation has started to crack a very tough nut. The Football (Disorder) Act 2000 originally included, as does this Bill, radical measures. During the passage of the 2000 Bill, I said that those radical measures would not be sufficient but would need to be coupled with a strategy which considered the breadth of the game and the way in which racism, violence and disorder swirled round the game and impacted upon it.
	I take some pride in the working party report produced under my guidance. I pay tribute to our officials who have been diligent in taking forward its many recommendations. I believe that over a longer period those recommendations will have an impact in changing the atmosphere that surrounds our national game.
	All the available evidence strongly suggests that Sections 14B, 21A and 21B have had the impact that we expected. I believe that they have also gone a long way to repair the damage that hooligans have done to our national reputation. UEFA, in particular, is pleased. It is notable, too, that other countries across Europe have looked with some degree of envy at our measures and the way in which they impact upon the behaviour of supporters at major games.
	We believe that there is a compelling case, based on evidence, for retaining the sections to which I have referred. We consider it to be right that they should continue to be subject to review and report. Since the measures were introduced there has been a dramatic reduction in significant disorder. It is also the case that the measures have been warmly welcomed by police forces across Europe as much as by governments.
	I do not believe for a moment that football violence has disappeared or that it will disappear for ever. We must always be vigilant. But I take great heart from the progress that has been made. This House, in particular, has a reputation for careful scrutiny and for not giving away liberties lightly or easily, and rightly so. It also has among its Members strong civil libertarians, such as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to argue for those liberties. I believe that we in this House have the ability to improve the quality of legislation. Certainly, we focused the Government's mind when we considered this legislation in the year 2000.
	A number of questions were asked and I shall respond to one or two of them. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked whether the international football banning orders related only to national team games. The new combined order covers club games in Europe as well. I believe that the noble Lord asked how a banning order could be lifted. The Act allows for applications to revoke banning orders at any time after two-thirds of the period has passed. The subject of a banning order can apply at short notice for an exemption from any requirement to report to the football banning order authority or the police.
	The noble Lord raised questions and concerns about the statistics. I believe, and have argued, that the statistics bear out our faith in the legislation. I also believe that the test of Munich was matched. The facts speak for themselves. Five hundred and thirty-seven known trouble-makers were prevented by the banning order conditions from travelling to Munich compared to 100 who were prevented from travelling to Euro 2000. Four hundred and ninety-two of those were banned following conviction of a football-related offence. The remaining 45 were banned in accordance with the Section 14B civil process. All 45 had convictions for violence or disorder, although not necessarily related directly to football. It is also the case that a further 58 were prevented by the courts from travelling in accordance with the Section 21B process. Again, all 58 had convictions for violence or public order offences.
	I argued, and I continue to do so, that genuine fans have nothing to fear from these powers. Perhaps I may pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. In putting across his argument, I believe that he suggested that the courts were rejecting 40 per cent of the applications made. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. Either the courts are doing their job properly or they are not. We argued initially at the time of the passing of the legislation that there would be ample tests of the powers. The courts are obviously proving to be robust in the way in which they are conducting cases and, quite rightly, they are raising the right type of question when confronted with individual cases.
	I have already said that many issues will fall from the case of the Leeds United footballers and all that surrounded it. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his continued concern on that issue. I believe that I have responded to most of the points. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, were concerned about the Scottish angle. We have not yet found that the Scottish problem—the leakage of hooligans through Scotland—has caused any great disruption to the working of the legislation.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, has the Minister considered making it a requirement for English and Welsh fans travelling to foreign matches that they wear kilts?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Not Welsh kilts? My Lords, I believe that these measures need to be put on to the statute book. To do other than that would send a wrong and entirely negative message. I believe that we can take great encouragement from the way in which these measures have worked over the past year or so. On the understanding that a sunset amendment will be tabled in Committee, I feel confident in commending the Bill to your Lordships' House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	This is an important measure and one which will go some way to ensuring that our democracy becomes more representative of society at large. For the first time in 20 years, the last general election saw a drop in the number of women elected to Westminster. By contrast, in 1997 a record number of women were elected to Parliament—120, which was double the number elected in 1992. I believe that that was undoubtedly a direct consequence of the positive measures used by the Labour Party in the run-up to that election. But, as your Lordships know, just before that election there was a challenge—the case of Jepson—in an employment tribunal. That ruling made all-women shortlists illegal under Section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
	It is a melancholy fact that women now make up only 18 per cent of the Members of the House of Commons. All parties should be discomfited by that. It is essential that women are properly represented in our country's democratic bodies. It is another melancholy fact that in the past 80 years, of the 4,500 MPs elected, only 240 were women.
	I illustrate further. At the 1997 election, six Liberal Democrats—five men and one woman—stood down. In 2001, seven Labour MPs stood down. Also in 2001, 25 Conservative MPs stood down. Not a single female candidate was selected to replace any of those sitting Members of Parliament. There are only two alternative explanations. One is that women simply are not up to the job, which I indignantly, and safely, repudiate; and the second is that the present system is unfair in its operation and in its outcomes.
	This Bill is short and simple. Perhaps I may stress that it simply removes the domestic legal barrier to which I referred briefly. And it is permissive, not prescriptive; in other words, it allows parties internally to come to their own conclusions. It amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which applies to Great Britain, to provide that Parts II to IV of that Act will not apply to measures adopted by a political party to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected. Equivalent amendments are made to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, which obviously bites in Northern Ireland.
	I mentioned earlier that the Bill is permissive not prescriptive. I believe that that is right. It is not for government to interfere with the internal workings of political parties. They should put their own houses in order if they have the will and the commitment to do so.
	The Bill extends to elections beyond Westminster. It covers elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the European Parliament and local government elections in the United Kingdom.
	Scotland and Wales have been more successful in ensuring a fairer degree of representation for women, but I believe that is largely as a result of positive measures taken in the run up to the inaugural elections. Women make up 37.2 per cent of the Members of the Scottish Parliament and 41.7 per cent of the Members of the National Assembly for Wales. It is important that those bodies are able to increase, or at least maintain, those levels. It is also important that the Bill covers elections at local government level where the current levels of women's representation range from 27 per cent in England, to 22 per cent in Scotland, and only 20 per cent in Wales.
	We believe that the Bill is compatible with our obligations under European law and the UK's international obligations. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a helpful report on the Bill on 30th November. That committee concluded that this piece of legislation was not incompatible with the ECHR, the UK's other human rights obligations under public international law, or European Community law on equal treatment.
	It is pleasing to see the work of that committee proceeding so efficiently and so promptly, not only in the context of this Bill, but notably in the context of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. It is a pleasure to be able to say that as my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who serves on that committee, is in his place. He contributed significantly to the speed and to the dispatch with which the report was produced.
	The committee drew attention, most helpfully, to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the scope within those treaties for affirmative action. I am pleased that the committee concurs with our view that the Bill is compliant with those obligations. I shall say no more about the legal consequences. What a Minister says about his or her view of the law does not bind the courts, but we are confident that that stance is correct.
	I know that the list of speakers is substantial. On the last parliamentary day of this year, I believe that that underlies your Lordships' commitment to ensuring that justice shall be done, even if late on Thursday, 20th December. I believe that I can look forward to unanimous cross-party support in this House. There was a significant degree of cross-party support in the House of Commons. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this important subject, especially given the high degree of consensus that I suspect will become apparent. Increasing the involvement of women in politics at national and at local level is both necessary and pressing. Such broad agreement on principles is sure to make for constructive debate.
	I was a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party for 10 years and in that capacity one of my main roles was to encourage women to take up the challenges of the parliamentary trail. From that experience, I know only too well the frustrations and heartache that can be involved in the process of standing for election. I have always felt that encouraging more women to stand for election should not be about "making up the numbers"; it should be about ensuring that the political process takes advantage of the wealth of experience and the fresh perspectives that women have to offer.
	The Bill applies only to those bodies and organisations that are composed of elected members. However, many of your Lordships have first-hand experience of selection, election and indeed non-election, I am sure. No doubt your Lordships will bring considerable knowledge to this debate. I turn now to another place, where the Bill is intended to have a significant impact. The statistics are well known, but perhaps I may remind your Lordships that at present only 18 per cent of MPs are women. It cannot be denied that that is a sorry state of affairs.
	There are two issues at stake, but they are connected: the first is the proportion of women involved in decision-making and the second is the inclusion of women's perspectives in government policies and programmes. I do not believe that there is a range of subjects called "women's issues" that men are incapable of considering. In fact, all issues are men's and women's issues. We should recognise that more women are capable of bringing their experience and expertise to Parliament than are currently doing so.
	It is difficult to accept that the current system is based on merit alone; few would seriously contend that the 82/18 per cent split is a just reflection of the distribution of talent in the United Kingdom. The involvement of such a small proportion of women in the political process should be seen as part of a wider context and a wider problem; the dwindling number of voters in recent years is indicative of widespread disengagement with politics around the country among men and women. At the last general election 3 per cent fewer women voted than men.
	Increasingly it appears to be the case that people see the work of Parliament as irrelevant to their lives. That, as your Lordships know, could hardly be further from the truth. I firmly believe that the Bill should be seen in that context. If we make a sincere attempt to make Parliament more responsive, accessible and attractive, in time this kind of legislation will cease to be necessary. Increasing the number of women returned to Parliament is crucial for enhancing its credibility as a modern institution, capable of effective, responsive government. It is in that spirit that I wish to approach the Bill today.
	In spite of my inclination towards contextualising this debate, I know that men and women are confronted with vastly different experiences when they decide to stand for election to Parliament. We cannot avoid discussing women's prospects in isolation, and there is no reason why we should try. Anecdotal evidence of that was in plentiful supply in another place, and it makes fascinating reading. There is plenty of scope for scoring points off one another, but the fact is that men and women have been treated differently in every party to the detriment (or otherwise) of their political careers.
	It remains the case for many women that when making their political ambitions known, they are met with raised eyebrows, frosty indifference or derision. We should not delude ourselves that that reaction is confined to men. Women on selection committees practise discrimination against women. Many excellent female candidates do not let that deter them. The fact that some women do is why we should consider ways of improving the situation. If we need a clearer understanding of the reasons why so many women believe that Parliament is not for them, surely this is a good place to start. However uncomfortable it may feel to admit it, politics is still seen by many people as, if I may use the expression, a man's game. The statistics alone are enough to foster that impression and it is, unfortunately, self-perpetuating.
	Many women believe that being selected to stand for Parliament will be harder for them than for their male counterparts and that their experiences if they are elected will not be positive. Indeed 29 per cent of women who have stood for Parliament told the recent MORI survey that they were aware of prejudice or sex discrimination at some stage in the process. Every political party has acknowledged that that perception is founded on reality and has undertaken to remedy the situation. I understand that each party will do so in different ways. The Bill is permissive. I genuinely hope that the rhetoric surrounding the Bill will also be permissive in tone.
	As the Secretary of State took the trouble to point out, and I believe it should be stressed, it would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the internal workings of political parties.
	There are, however, important matters on which I should appreciate clarification. It seems myopic to claim that there will be no new burdens placed on political parties as a result of the Bill. In another place, the Minister for Transport, Local Government and the Regions referred on some occasions to,
	"what will happen in the Government's view",
	and at other times to the fact that political parties will have to take legal advice. There seems to be some confusion over precisely what impact the Bill will have on political parties, particularly if its provisions engage the European Convention on Human Rights. I am afraid that this may be a necessary consequence of the Bill being permissive rather than prescriptive. There may well be the need for a regulatory impact assessment once political parties are subject to the provisions of the Bill.
	No one seems entirely sure of what the legislation will permit that is not currently permitted. Twinning, zipping and other special measures seem to have been used without challenge since 1996 and the Jepson case. That is not to say that they would not be a challenge in the future. Assuming that the ECHR is engaged, a political party will presumably only be permitted to take action that is proportionate in ECHR terms. It will of course have to take legal advice to establish exactly what it can do and what it cannot. Whether a particular course of action is proportionate is a matter for the courts.
	The Bill as drafted appears to protect political parties from expensive legal challenges. Are we to accept that the funding of legal challenges is to become an inevitable expense for political parties? I would be grateful if, in winding up, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal could give some indication of the Government's view on this matter.
	The rest of my concerns relate to the possibility of legal challenge under European law and particularly under the Equal Treatment Directive. I believe I understand the Government's position on this point: the selection of MPs and other elected representatives is deemed to be sufficiently unlike the process of being selected for employment to fall within the Equal Treatment Directive.
	However, it seems that the Government cannot guarantee that that is the case. The European Court of Justice could well make a different decision. The ECJ has tended to interpret the law to suggest that a positive action system should not be so rigid as to bar men totally from access to particular posts. It seems that the Government are introducing legislation that could well fall foul of European law at some time in the future. I understand that the Government have offered reassurance in another place; namely, that they have considered this aspect of the Bill carefully. My concern, however, remains. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, will offer similar reassurance to your Lordships' today.
	Finally, I reiterate my sincere hope that we shall see more women becoming involved in the political process, at both local and national levels. Representing a constituency in Parliament is an extraordinary job. It is a task which requires commitment, talent and experience. Many women who would make excellent Members of Parliament are, for a variety of reasons, not coming forward. This disengagement is reflected in the small proportion of women who voted in the last general election. Of those women who do come forward, many experience treatment different from that of their male counterparts. I am confident that every party will work on this issue over the coming months. Because I believe in freedom of choice for political parties, in the freedom to exercise one's talents and be recognised for those talents regardless of one's sex, I accept the need for this legislation. It seeks to allow political parties to rectify a situation that has long been the subject of justifiable and considerable frustration.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for introducing the Second Reading of this short but important Bill, albeit at the very end of the Session.
	A cynic might point out that the order of today's programme suggests that football is more important than gender equality, but I shall not let myself be distracted by that thought.
	I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of her party. She has a distinguished record in this area. I sympathise with a good deal of what she said, particularly in the earlier part of her speech.
	From these Benches I should like to give a warm welcome to the Government's proposals. This is a simple Bill, but it tackles a significant problem. As the noble and learned Lord said, it disapplies for registered political parties the sections of the Sex Discrimination Act under which the Labour Party was successfully prosecuted in 1996 for its use of all-women shortlists. In effect, it permits, but does not oblige, political parties to use positive action to increase the number of women elected at parliamentary, EU, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and local authority elections. It is a measure designed to be of a temporary nature although I understand that it can be continued after the original period is over.
	In the current House of Commons, only 18 per cent of Members are women. To my sorrow, only five out of the 52 Members elected as Liberal Democrats in 2001 are women. That is despite years and years of effort in trying to persuade women to come forward and to educate them and make them fit for the selection process, and, more recently, trying to train selectors to select in a non-discriminatory fashion.
	The problem is not that women cannot get selected to parliamentary constituencies, but that they cannot get selected for winnable seats. That is the significance of the point about the replacement of retiring MPs raised by the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, the failure of the Labour Party to get more women selected in place of its retiring MPs was despite the fact that it had 50:50 men:women shortlists in those particular seats. Even that was not sufficient to get a significant proportion of women put forward as candidates.
	The recent EOC survey, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred, covered 400 parliamentary candidates, both men and women of all parties. It found that 52 per cent of the candidates agreed with the statement that,
	"women have to be better than men to be selected",
	and 41 per cent of the candidates agreed with the statement,
	"selection committees in my party tend to look more favourably on male than on female candidates".
	It is no wonder that the UK is 33rd in the world in terms of its proportion of women Members of Parliament.
	How other countries deal with the problem can teach us a good deal. Let us consider, for example, Sweden and Norway. One is inside and one is outside the European Union, but both are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. We note that Sweden has the highest percentage of women in Parliament of any country in the world, at 43 per cent, and that in Norway 36.4 per cent of Members of Parliament are women. But in both cases, although there is equality legislation in both countries, that law is not relevant to the selection of parliamentary candidates and it is a matter of choice by political parties whether they adopt positive action to increase the number of women members of their parliament. Interestingly enough, in Norway, by convention every government since 1986 have ensured that 40 per cent of the members of the government are women. In neither Sweden nor Norway has any case been brought by a man against the positive action in favour of women candidates.
	The most interesting case is France. In France, the main source of equality law is the constitution, starting with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It went on to deal with the rights of men, women, citizens, and so on. Before the French could tackle positive discrimination in favour of women in elected office, the constitution had to be modified. That was achieved in 1999.
	In May 2000, a new electoral law was passed. That applied both to local, regional and European Union elections—in which a list system is used—and to parliamentary elections in single-member constituencies. For the list elections, each block of six candidates on a list must contain an equal number of men and women. The effect of that was seen in the local commune elections of March 2001, when the percentage of women elected rose from 22 per cent in 1995 to more than 47 per cent in 2001.
	For parliamentary elections, the gap between the number of women and the number of men candidates presented by a party cannot be greater than 2 per cent without the party losing part of its state funding. That weapon is not available in this country, as—rightly or wrongly, and I shall not go into that argument—political parties do not receive state funding. So if, for example, out of 100 candidates, a party presents 40 women and 60 men, its state funding will drop by 10 per cent. We do not know what will be the result of that new rule, but it will become clear in the parliamentary elections in 2002.
	Much has been written and said about the permissibility of positive action under European and other human rights law. I am no lawyer, and others present today, including my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, can speak with far greater authority, but as a lay person, it seems obvious to me that if other European nations that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights or members of the Union, or both, can promote greater equality between men and women candidates, we ought to be able to do the same without risking legal challenge.
	My understanding is that positive action must be proportionate and temporary. The Bill appears to satisfy both of those conditions. However, I should like the Minister to tell us what the Government have concluded in respect of the relevance to the Bill of the equal treatment directive. I wish the Bill well. I hope that it will be passed as soon as rationally possible without amendment, and I look forward to listening to the contributions of the extraordinarily distinguished gallery of people I see opposite.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in my experience it is rare to voice the usual courtesies of your Lordships' House about welcoming a Bill with the genuine enthusiasm that I feel about this one. I also warmly welcome my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn to the additional responsibility of being spokesman for women's issues in this House—following, if I may say so, a well-trodden tradition of combining the roles of Leader of the House with spokesperson on women's issues.
	As only the gender has changed during the past few months since I stepped down from that combined role after the May election, I feel that I can say without presumption—I hope that this raises neither biological nor ethical issues—that I feel myself to be the surrogate mother of the Bill. It has had a long and complicated gestation, but I am obviously delighted that, following the manifesto commitment made by the Labour Party before the May 2001 election, the Government have brought forward such early legislation on this important matter.
	During my time as a Minister dealing with such issues, the arguments against such a Bill came from two main directions. We have already heard some of those arguments and will hear more. The first negative argument is that we do not need heavy-handed legislation on the matter—that, in time, women will find their way into elected office in the proper proportion, if that is where they wish to be and they are good enough to hold such office.
	The second argument, which has been more potent and has already been raised by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lady Seccombe, concerns not whether we in Britain want to take any action to get more women into Parliament and local government but what are the possible complications of our relationship with our European Union partners in seeking to achieve that.
	When I was involved with the matter in government, together with Civil Service colleagues and political and academic advisers, we tried hard to persuade people—I must say that there were people in government who were opposed to such a move from both points of view that I have just described—that those arguments did not stand up. The big breakthrough came—here I must pay tribute to the Constitution Unit at University College, London, and Meg Russell, who was the lead author on the subject—when we decided to try to approach the question through changing electoral, rather than employment law. Strong legal and political skills were applied to that by my special adviser, Clare Cozens, who is about to take up a post at the Equal Opportunities Commission. Both women were important in finding a way through on the matter.
	We now have the Bill, which permits steps to promote women as candidates in elections at all levels. As we have heard, in the Labour Party that almost certainly means a return to the previously outlawed all-women shortlists. I do not mind admitting that I am a late convert to the idea of all-women shortlists. But like all converts on many issues, I am now a strong believer that that is the only way to increase the proportion of elected women representatives. After all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, explained, we have tried many other ways to engage women in politics and improve their chances of selection, but all-women shortlists have been most successful in achieving the result that we wanted at Westminster.
	My conversion to that policy was based on two grounds. Those were my experience of the 1997-2001 Parliament and my experience with ministerial colleagues and others in our European counterpart countries—to which, if I may, I shall return. Perhaps somewhat naively, before the 1997 election, I had assumed that we had definitely put behind us the arguments about whether women were equal in their role and capacity in the political arena. I had hoped that by then we had demonstrated beyond doubt that we were entitled to have more women Members of Parliament, councillors, Members of the Welsh Assembly, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was not because of any belief that women can only represent women, or that only women can deal with particular subjects. However, unless we have women in public life in much the same proportion as they are in the population—I remind your Lordships that that is 51 per cent; rather higher than the 18 per cent that has rightly been cited as the proportion in the House of Commons at present—we lose women's distinctive perspective. There is a genuinely different women's perspective.
	Furthermore, we lose the different life and work experiences which women have and bring to the political process. And we should have no shame or hesitation in mentioning the benefit of the general political skills which many women politicians and would-be politicians have. That is the case particularly in a world in which much political endeavour is to achieve consensus.
	My observation of the past few years has been that I was rather naive in expecting that that view was universally agreed by everyone in the political arena. As has already been mentioned, in the 1997 election after the adoption of the all-women shortlist arrangements, 101 women Labour MPs were elected. I believe that one could say without challenge that those 101 women had ability, just like their male colleagues. They brought a different set of skills to the job, just like their male colleagues. They had different strengths and different weaknesses, just like their male colleagues. It is fair to say that they approached policy-making with intelligence. They changed government policy through evidence-based pressure on Ministers, a fact of which I was well aware.
	They did not necessarily make a great deal of noise—they were not always the people heard on radio programmes or seen on television—but they made a great deal of difference to the lives of their constituents. That was often the case, but certainly not exclusively, on issues of importance to women which perhaps had not seemed so significant to their male colleagues.
	However, many of the 101 women Labour MPs were dismissed in a derogatory way as "Blair's Babes". And the women who became Ministers were often again denigrated on sexist grounds by commentators and, it must be said, sometimes by their colleagues. The attempts which they often spearheaded to improve and make procedures in Parliament more family-friendly and acceptable were defeated, often by what could fairly be described as the "old-boy network".
	It is not surprising that many of them lost heart. Even the 101 women Labour MPs, plus a handful of those from the other parties which made up a total of 119 MPs in the previous Parliament, did not form a critical mass to change things and to make their voices heard as strongly as they should have been in the House of Commons.
	As my noble and learned friend reminded us in introducing the Bill, the constituencies apparently listened to the criticisms of women MPs and decided to return to their preference for male candidates. The voluntary cultural change which many of us had hoped might happen as a result of the stimulus of the all-women shortlist in the mid-1990s simply did not happen. As we know, even this year in other parties it was even more difficult for women to take part. I even heard the old chestnut again wheeled out at a selection conference this year, when a women prospective candidate was asked how she would manage without a wife!
	We have reached the stage at which it will take decades for significant numbers of women to take their places in Parliament and other elected bodies to form the famous "critical mass" unless we take the kind of positive but none the less proportionate action which the Bill proposes. I am delighted that a way through the legal obstacle seems to have been achieved by going along the route of changing and making changes to the electoral law process rather than through the employment law, the one which seemed so difficult to confront.
	The next major question, which was raised by previous speakers, is how the approach can be dealt with and whether it will run foul of Europe, the EU directives and the European human rights legislation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I would never pretend to have any legal expertise in that area. However, I have been reliably informed and feel confident in asserting, as did my noble and learned friend with greater and more expertise on which to rely, that in these matters the selection of parliamentary candidates is not an area in which European legislation can bite; otherwise—and the question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood—how could the vast majority of member states within the EU have legislated for positive action such as we now contemplate?
	I am sure that the existence of such measures within the EU is the reason that has created a much higher representation in our partner countries in Europe. We have heard of the particularly startling example of how a change in French legislation led to such major increases in local elections this year. One campaign doubled the number of women councillors overnight, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, described.
	When I discussed the issues with my European counterparts at ministerial and political gatherings, they were always amazed when I told them that the United Kingdom courts regarded selection of a parliamentary candidate as the equivalent of an offer of employment and therefore subject to EU jurisdiction. I understand that every other EU member state treats it as a matter of electoral law, whereas it seems that the EU has no locus. As has already been stated—and I, too, look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on the subject—because measures such as those proposed in the Bill are proportionate, any attempts to eliminate discrimination are also permitted and able to fall under the European Convention on Human Rights.
	In common-sense terms—and I know that it does not always apply to legal debates, particularly those which are based on some of the European arrangements—it seems to me that those are sufficient reasons not to be concerned either about the European jurisdiction in general or about the European Convention on Human Rights in particular.
	In conclusion, I believe that the Bill is necessary and proportionate. It will benefit not only women, but all our democratic institutions. They will become more diverse and have representation and membership which is more representative of the balance of the population. I hope that this unelected House will give the Bill speedy deliberation and a speedy passage. I, too, am delighted that so many distinguished contributors are in the Chamber today. That bodes well for the successful passage of the Bill.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, I begin by congratulating the Government on the Bill and on the many actions they have taken to promote a far better representation of women in public affairs, not least that there are seven women in the Cabinet. That positive approach is reflected—if, as a relatively new girl, I may say this—in the impressively visible role played in all parts and on all sides of this House by its noble Baronesses, still alas, at 16 per cent, a minority of your Lordships.
	I welcome the Bill, but at the same time I regret it. I regret it because it is still so painfully necessary. But that, alas, is entirely in line with the whole history of the subject. There were, for example, as many present will remember, no fewer than 28 unsuccessful attempts before women got the first bite at the vote. Perhaps not everyone will remember because they were between 1870 and 1914. The first woman MP was elected in 1919 and during the past 60 years the percentage of women MPs has never risen above 6 per cent.
	Therefore, when I chaired the 1990 Hansard Society Commission, Women at the Top, 18 years after the Sex Discrimination Act, it was no surprise that in our recommendations we had to appeal to all political parties to scrutinise the way in which their policies and practices placed women at a real disadvantage in their efforts to be adopted as candidates.
	We come to 1997, when at last we can see some improvement. The percentage of women MPs rose to a dizzy 18 per cent, but only after Labour's controversial introduction of women-only shortlists, subsequently pronounced illegal. Hence today's Bill, which seeks to legitimise some forms of positive discrimination of a kind that, as we have heard, have long been outlawed in the employment field.
	The irony of this is that all our political parties, while proclaiming the principle of equality of opportunity, seem to recognise that they cannot do the right thing without having a law to make them do it. I understand the need, but despite what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, I have to say that I still hope that none of the political parties will feel it necessary to go back to the particular kind of positive discrimination involved in all-women shortlists—whether technically lawful or not. The permissive nature of the legislation will leave each political party free to decide for itself. That is a major selling point for the Bill.
	My hope, however, is that by now all parties will have learnt the important lessons and that instead they will implement much more vigorous forms of positive action rather than positive discrimination to achieve the right results. For I remain wary of positive discrimination for at least two reasons. First, because there are considerable dangers of backlash from that approach. We have seen that in the USA, for example. Noble Lords will recall the 1978 Bakke case where a less qualified student was accepted into a medical school, having been preferred to a white student. That was done as compensation for past race discrimination. The second reason—I suspect that we shall hear a little more on this from that most knowledgeable of all experts in the field, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—is that such action might, depending on how it is translated and the proportionality of the actions, fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The question is whether positive action, as opposed to positive discrimination, is likely to have the desired effect. Personally, I am convinced that if it is consistently applied it can make at least a substantial difference, even if it does not provide the complete solution. I say that on the basis of progress achieved in other fields, working from the analysis of our Hansard Commission report.
	We started from the premise that, despite the efforts of the Equal Opportunities Commission over the previous 15 years, it was quite clear that even more positive action was needed. Above all, it was needed to remove blocks to women's progress to the all-important decision-making levels. Hansard identified specific barriers. First and foremost was the persistence of outmoded attitudes towards the role of women and, secondly, the need for more flexible and family-friendly structures for work and careers, including more childcare provision. Again, the Government have achieved a good deal in that field.
	As for outmoded attitudes, it was clear that the higher the level of responsibility and the "clubbier" the culture of the organisation, the more outdated were likely to be the attitudes. Company boards, senior common rooms and that most exclusive of all men's clubs—the House of Commons, or "the other place" as I now have to refer to it—were among the worst offenders. We described the then proportion of women MPs—it had just risen to 6 per cent—as "wholly unacceptable". After all, the House of Commons is a body which should set the agenda for the whole nation. As we have already heard, women with their experience and expertise comprise 51 per cent of the nation.
	That was the message which inspired Business in the Community to establish the campaign originally entitled "Opportunity 2000" which I had the privilege to chair in its early years. It is known today as Opportunity Now. We set out to persuade employers that, above all, it was in their own bottom-line best interests to make the most of their human resources; that is, of the female talent which they had trained and developed, and yet appeared ready to see go to waste. On that basis, very real progress has been made, although still not enough at the most senior company boardroom level.
	More enlightened employers, however, in the public as well as the private sector, have increasingly recognised the value of their women employees. They have made the necessary adjustments to allow women steadily to move up the management ladder. Opportunity Now employers are well ahead of the national average in the number of women managers they employ. Furthermore, they are perceived by the brightest of both sexes at the start of their careers as the kind of forward-looking organisations for whom they themselves would like to work.
	One of the most important ways that this has been achieved is by organisations setting clear gender targets, by firmly monitoring their progress towards them, and making public the results on a yearly basis. Research shows that by putting in place the flexible arrangements necessary to retain valued employees—increasingly, for men as well as women during periods of family responsibility—the growing awareness that they may otherwise lose those employees to a more enlightened competitor has helped to concentrate minds remarkably.
	I would argue that it is that lesson which all political parties have simply got to take more seriously, even if only for their own sake. It is clear today that the Labour Party, with 23 per cent women MPs, heads the list. The Liberal Democrats at 10 per cent would like to do better; we have heard that already. The Conservatives, dismally, are lower still at 8 per cent. But the truth is that no political party can be proud of its record to date. Yet I believe that a party's electoral success increasingly will depend on how well they perform in this field.
	Leaders in the other place are already addressing the vexed questions of parliamentary hours and conditions of work, but the parties themselves also have to take action at every level. Above all, however, they must ensure that a proper proportion of women appear on each list of candidates, in particular for winnable seats—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. For that to happen, the parties must ensure that each constituency selection committee, whether choosing councillors, MEPs or parliamentary candidates, is itself properly chosen, trained and equipped to do the job fairly, legally and, above all, positively. If they fail in that, they will fail at the polls as well. Just as in business, so in politics; more forward looking competitors will beat them to the post. And quite right too.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and many other Members of the House, of both sexes, who have done so much to promote equality of treatment and opportunity for women.
	I am proud to have been one of the architects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I remember that in our discussions in Whitehall when that Act was being debated we had many strong arguments with officials who were passionately opposed to positive action. We managed to get limited positive action written into the Sex Discrimination Act, including special measures to enable the Labour Party, in particular, to have a women's section and special positive action within the party. All that was beneficial.
	I have absolutely no doubt that there is a need for positive action to overcome the effects of discrimination and disadvantage. The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights—about which the Lord Privy Seal has said some generous and kind things—has made it clear that positive action is sometimes required, and that that is certainly compatible with international human rights law and with European law. So far, so good.
	I have no doubt—and the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights has no doubt—that the Lord Privy Seal was perfectly correct to sign, under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, on the face of the Bill that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is compatible because the Bill is both permissive and a blank cheque—that is, it does not require any action which could conceivably breach the principle of equality, properly understood, which includes proportionate and necessary measures to tackle inequality.
	However, there is a problem which I feel it is necessary to air in public—although I suspect I shall suffer the fate of Cassandra. Noble Lords will remember that Cassandra had the ability to make prophecies that were accurate but which were disbelieved at the time—and then met a terrible fate for getting it right. I feel it is necessary to be a bit of a Cassandra because the version of the risk to political parties presented to the House and to the other place somewhat understates the problem. The problem is not whether the Bill is compatible, but exactly what political parties can and cannot do to write on the blank cheque which is the Bill without finishing up in court facing claims which, if they succeed, could now include damages and, certainly, large legal costs.
	What the Government say is summarised in two extremely helpful and detailed Answers given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, to Questions I tabled. For those who are interested in this kind of thing, one Answer was given on 28th November and the other was given on 17th December. I have never read more helpful and lengthy legal opinions in the course of Written Answers to Questions than one finds there.
	The Government's position can be summarised in this way. They say that we do not have to worry about European Union law because this does not concern employment; therefore it falls outside the employment equality directive. They say that we do not have to worry about the Human Rights Act—at least not directly because political parties are not public authorities and so cannot be sued under the Human Rights Act—but it may be that the Human Rights Act will apply as between the party and the member, in terms of the contract of membership, in private law rather than in public law. The Government then say that whatever is done must be proportionate—but they do not say what "proportionate" means, and in particular what it means in relation to all-female shortlists, which is the issue in the Jepson case. They say that it is all up to the courts in the end. That is a crude summary of the Government's position.
	The paper written for the Constitution Unit by Meg Russell, who is not a lawyer, was rightly referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, as an important document. I declare an interest as one of the founders and advisory council member of the Constitution Unit. That paper rightly points to the fact that lots of other member states have recently been doing this kind of thing. But I am afraid that she understates what the real legal problems are.
	Without boring everyone to death, perhaps I may first say what I believe we should be doing about the gross under-representation of women in Parliament so far as the law is concerned, and then set out what I believe the real legal risks to be.
	We should be doing three or four main things. First, we should be applying the full force of the sex and race discrimination legislation to tackle the direct and indirect discrimination now being practised by the political parties. I have no doubt that indirect discrimination is commonplace within all the political parties. I wish that the EOC and the CRE would exercise their functions in relation to that, whether advisory or more coercive.
	I am convinced that the great benefit of the Jepson decision—the decision of John Prophet's industrial tribunal in Leeds holding that all-women shortlists were unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act—was that it made it clear that political parties may not discriminate directly or indirectly on grounds of gender. That decision was applied later by the Employment Appeal Tribunal to race as well. So the first vital point is to eliminate direct and indirect discrimination.
	Secondly, if possible, there should be a fairer and more proportionate system of electing Members of Parliament, one that would encourage greater political pluralism and diversity, as has been done across the Continent. That would certainly help. I am not a fanatic about proportional representation. However, I have no doubt that in the United Kingdom, as in the United States, one of the reasons for the gross under-representation of women is a consequence of having the first-past-the-post system. That, of course, is not something that this Government are going to do.
	Thirdly, a positive duty should be imposed on political parties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and then under an amended version of the Sex Discrimination Act, unless Members of both Houses consider—and this is arguable—that it is not the place of Parliament to regulate political parties at all, notwithstanding the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which does a great deal in this field. I can understand the Government saying that they will not impose positive duties on political parties. So the next thing that the law can do is to have a carefully tailored exception to allow positive action which is necessary and proportionate.
	The Government have shied away from writing in any proportionality requirements or giving any guidance to political parties, saying, "Let's leave it to the courts". So my last point is: what are the risks so far as the courts are concerned?
	The first risk is that this will be regarded as falling within the sphere of European Union law, notwithstanding what has been said in this House. The industrial tribunal, against whose decision no appeal was made, decided in the Jepson case that this did fall within the 1976 equal treatment directive and Mr John Prophet, as chair, used the directive in the context of the Sex Discrimination Act. So the Government have to say that that decision is wrong, and that European Union law does not apply.
	Secondly, the Select Committee on Human Rights, in its report—commended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal—regarded it as being strongly arguable that European Union law does apply for the reasons set out in the report. I shall not go into those reasons. That would be boring. But there is a reasonable argument that European Union law does apply. We shall not know that unless and until the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg decides the issue, if it has to do so.
	It seems to me that the much greater risk is under the Human Rights Act, which is not dealt with in most of the papers that one has read on the subject. The problem, which the Select Committee identifies, is that political parties are public authorities for the purpose of the Human Rights Act.
	I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will forgive me if I say that the weakest part of the Answer that he gave on 17th December to my Question, when trying to explain why political parties are not public authorities for the purpose of the Human Rights Act, was:
	"a body will only be a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act if it has a public function, that is, a function which is governmental or quasi-governmental in nature and which seeks to achieve some collective benefit for the public. The Government's view is that the selection of a candidate to stand for election is internal to the party and its members, and is more a private act that furthers the party's own ends than a public function".—[Official Report, 17/12/01; col. WA 32.]
	With great respect, that cannot be true. First, that interpretation of what is a public function is crabbed and narrow—much narrower than the interpretation taken by the courts in the cases under the Human Rights Act. Secondly, even if it were possible to confine the notion of public authority and public function to a function that is "quasi-governmental in nature", whatever that means, there are many examples of American constitutional court cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly ruled that pre-primary selection processes in the American South that excluded blacks constituted state action. We are not talking about the Garrick Club choosing members, for heaven's sake. We are talking about a political party selecting official party candidates for public office, either in Parliament or elsewhere. Our American friends would be astonished to learn that that is not held to be a public function on this side of the Atlantic, because it is manifestly state action. Political parties are private for most purposes, but not when they are selecting candidates for public office.
	I often have doubts, but I have no doubt that the courts would say that political parties are public authorities for the purpose of the Human Rights Act, in which case they can be sued directly under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act if they act in a way that is not compatible with the convention. The relevant articles of the convention are Article 3 of the first protocol, read with Article 14. If the political party acts disproportionately by having crude or rigid systems of the kind that my party threw out at its recent conference in Bournemouth, I have no doubt that it will be found to have discriminated unlawfully under the Human Rights Act. That is a serious risk. Fortunately or unfortunately, political parties will need a lot of legal advice one way or the other. No lawyer will honestly be able to say whether twinning, zipping or all-female shortlists will be compatible until there is case law.
	I have one other point to make. Unfortunately, I have a terrifically good record as Cassandra. I advised the Labour Party informally before Jepson that it would lose and was told that it was none of my damned business, because it was not my party. Unfortunately, I was proved right. I have a terrible feeling that if political parties—the Labour Party or mine—go too far, they will come a cropper, and my goodness me it is going to cost a lot of money.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, given the noble Lord's knowledge on the subject and in the light of recent experience, can he tell us whether, if Cassandra is right, we could seek a derogation from the Human Rights Act?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I deplore any derogation from the Human Rights Act. That derogation arose from a public emergency that occurred on September 11th threatening the life of the nation. This is not terrorism legislation; it is remedial legislation.
	A perfectly good point has been made that lots of other countries are doing this kind of thing, so what is the problem? The problem is that none of those countries has had their systems tested in either of the two European courts. The only place where the idea has been tested is France, which my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood mentioned. Why did the French amend the constitution? They amended it because the Conseil Constitutionnel decided in 1982 that a rather modest 25 per cent quota for women in local government elections violated the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen by violating the principle of equality. No one knows whether the amendment made to the French constitution, to take the matter away from the Conseil Constitutionnel, will pass muster under either European Union law or convention law.
	All we can say is that there is a lot of this type of thing happening at the moment, and European judges have yet to pronounce on it. In the United Kingdom, however, thanks to the Government's wisdom in incorporating the convention in the Human Rights Act 1998, it will be British judges who decide such questions. If parties behave sensibly and proportionately, the Bill will be a great step forward. If they do not, it will turn out to be a source of liability.
	I therefore support the Bill, and I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that it is compatible with the convention. I simply urge political parties not to be over-enthusiastic in seeking to overcome this ancient and completely unacceptable situation of the gross under-representation of women in Parliament and elsewhere.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, a century ago, in 1901, Christabel Pankhurst decided to enrol as a law student. She completed her studies and joined the degree of Bachelor of Laws with first class honours. However, it was impossible for her to practise as a solicitor or a barrister. Because she was a woman, she became Secretary of the Committee to Secure the Admission of Women to the Legal Profession. It was not until enactment of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 that the professions of the law were opened to women.
	One hundred years on from 1901, and many decades after the efforts of the Pankhursts and others achieved women's suffrage, women are still grossly under-represented in the profession of politics. The Bill seeks to do something about that. I therefore warmly welcome it. It is a well-balanced Bill that allows a political party, should it wish to do so, to adopt measures to reduce inequality, and it does not compel anything. It will apply on enactment, but a sunset clause will apply when it is no longer needed. The sunset clause will, however, allow a big push to be made in the period covering the next three general elections.
	Political parties in many European countries and around the world use positive action to address inequalities between men and women, and we should not lag behind. Legislation allowing political parties to apply positive-action mechanisms in candidate selection is essential. The use of such mechanisms has been shown to increase women's representation. Progress has been slow, or non-existent, when such mechanisms have not been used.
	We must take action urgently; otherwise, we shall be unable to influence selection procedures for the next general election. In 1997, the number of women Members of Parliament increased from 60 to 120, largely because the Labour Party used all-women shortlists. In 2001, after such shortlists were outlawed, the number of women Members of Parliament decreased. This is no time for complacency.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton: My Lords, having supported the Bill's development while Minister for Women, I am particularly pleased to speak in this debate, and I am delighted that the Bill is receiving its Second Reading today. As many of your Lordships are aware, selections that will be made this year could be affected by this legislation. I therefore welcome the Bill's simplicity and the speed with which it is being passed.
	All Members of this House and of the other place wish that the Bill were not necessary; it is simply a means to an end. When I was involved in promoting all-women shortlists and a variety of other measures in my party, we believed that one push would make the difference and that progress would be maintained once we had achieved a large intake of new women MPs. Sadly, despite the fact that we maintained 50-50 male-female shortlists, the progress was not maintained; in fact, there was some slippage.
	We are making a clear statement by supporting the Bill, not only about our desire to see women take their rightful place in public life and in the country's governance, but about our commitment to improving the quality of our democracy. We must build a democracy that uses the talents of all our people and truly reflects the society it was created to serve. Our society has changed considerably and our democracy needs to keep pace with those changes. It cannot be static.
	This Bill simply recognises the reality that women are not coming through the political system in fair numbers and it is a statement that we want that to change. It is also the means which allows action to take place to encourage that to happen in a simple and practical way.
	Every issue and every policy has an impact on women in our country. If we are to create good laws and effective policies, those must reflect the needs and concerns of our whole society. Women comprise 50 per cent of the population and almost 50 per cent of the workforce. They remain the primary carers of children and elderly relatives. They are the main users and key front-line deliverers of our health and education services. Over three-quarters of NHS staff and two-thirds of our teachers are women. They are the main users of local bus services. National surveys show that they are more concerned than men about safety on the streets and particularly about violent crime.
	Women are often those members of society who feel the real practical effect, the practical ramifications of our laws. They do not necessarily do all the talking about policy but they certainly experience the results.
	Yet if they look at our local councils and political institutions, women, and particularly young women, still see places that have very little to do with their daily reality. They still see, too, a sea of grey suits and are certainly disheartened by the yah-boo politics which seem irrelevant and childish to them, although, clearly, not in this place today.
	The statistics have been well rehearsed, with just 18 per cent of women in the other place. And in local government, where many women begin their political careers, women still make up only 27 per cent of local councillors. Again, at a local level, those figures appear to have got stuck. In many ways, it is particularly important that we make progress at local government level because if we involve women at that point, there is a chance of bringing them through the process.
	It is no surprise then that many women not only fail to see anything in the formal political arena which is meaningful to their lives but they also fail to see how they could possibly make any real difference themselves. And yet it is women who are leading in their local community groups; chairing the board of governors for their children's schools; leading their local residents association; and running the local playgroup. They are the rock, the foundations, of many of our local voluntary organisations and charities.
	To be effective, our democracy and our political institutions need to make the connection between local, small "p" politics and the more formal political arena. That is the challenge facing all our political parties and, indeed, many of our national public bodies and national institutions too.
	I firmly believe that a number of policies which this Government have adopted since 1997 have come about precisely because of the increased number of women MPs and women Ministers. We have, for example, improved maternity rights and pay. We are putting in place important measures to help parents—both mothers and increasingly fathers too—better to balance their work and family responsibilities. But in many policies, it is the emphasis in the detail, not the headlines, which have been influenced by the input of women. I strongly echo the view of my noble friend Lady Jay when she talked about women's approach to making policy being different: seeking consensus rather than scoring points.
	It is appropriate that the Bill which we are supporting today is permissive not proscriptive and that decisions about particular measures are rightly left in the hands of individual political parties. It is appropriate that those changes are facilitated but not enforced by government. I am confident that in supporting this legislation, we are not only helping to increase the representation of women in public life but perhaps most important, we are greatly enhancing the quality of our democracy.
	Finally, I believe that this Bill is proportionate and is in accordance with European law. I hope that we shall not lose the opportunity of taking action quickly which will affect our democratic institutions in the near future and move forward in the way that many other countries in the EU have done.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have identified the gross under-representation of women in our political system. Even though the general election gave the Liberal Democrat Party four new women MPs, they still make up less than 10 per cent of our parliamentary party, which makes me very uncomfortable. Overall, women represent less than 18 per cent of Parliament as a whole, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has just pointed out. This under-representation is bad for all political parties. It is bad for democracy and disconnects large sections of the community from the political process.
	The Bill before us is about the principle which allows us the methods, commitments and working culture that we need to develop in order to remove the gross under-representation of women. The questions we need to ask are how, within the framework of values and beliefs on equality, have we produced such a discrepancy and why women do not reflect their representation in the community. It has been often pointed out that if women constitute 50 per cent of our population, why is that not reflected in our political and public institutions? Surely, that is the minimum target for which we should be aiming .
	The existing system is unlikely to achieve that: in fact, it works to the disadvantage of women. Targets are not unlawful. If effective steps are taken to remove direct and indirect discrimination, and if positive action is taken under the sex discrimination legislation, there is no reason why the percentage of women should not increase significantly. If that is the minimum that we can achieve, then we are on the right track.
	The main aim of positive action is to make equal opportunity a reality. Unfortunately, the general election has demonstrated that, despite that provision, we have not achieved a balanced representation of women. If, therefore, we have failed, should we not try to put it right? We must aim for special measures that will make that possible. In my party we have tried shadowing and mentoring, and we have allocated extra financial resources. We have even developed a zipping system to save our blushes. But these measures have failed to deliver equality of outcomes.
	Two years ago I chaired a working party in my own party looking at policies and practices and how we could remove all the obstacles that could hinder the advancement of women within the process that we adopted. That has not helped. I trust that this Bill will go some way in assisting us. We now have a framework of new legislation which was long overdue.
	At this stage perhaps I may pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, whose contributions I have always appreciated on this particular matter. I hope that her new duties will not prevent her from speaking in the House on this subject.
	A new law permitting political parties to undertake affirmative action is a declaration of public policy. We need that strong and effective law within the framework of the Sex Discrimination Act. No amount of statistical information will make me believe that we have been fair in terms of female representation in our political system. It has been pointed out that other western countries have positive action programmes. A country such as India is not ashamed of establishing a 30 per cent quota for women members.
	We now need to ensure that changes can happen now that the Government have given this particular lead. All political parties have to re-examine the practical implications to ensure that what we do is not only lawful, but that the outcomes justify the actions we have taken. Do not let others frighten us in the action we should take. The law will encourage vital change in the attitudes and actions of individual men and women. It will help to break down the barriers and exclusions and enable the best use of the nation's resources where women have contributed so much and have received so little in return.
	It is beyond doubt that one conspicuous area in which we have yet to make a significant contribution is gender equality. As a result, all political parties have attracted considerable public criticism both as regards the processes employed and the outcome achieved. That should be of no surprise to any of us. There is no need to be squeamish about it. There is no doubt that if we resolve this issue, the equality of outcome for ethnic minorities will be a logical step forward.
	There is a danger that positive action is often confused with positive discrimination. Positive action does not mean accepting lower standards. That is often the argument advanced in race cases. Positive action does not mean quotas, but removing past disadvantages which women have suffered. Positive action means creating a level playing field and providing education, welfare and training, which will allow women to compete from the same starting point.
	The present Bill will help but let us not make a mistake, Parliament itself has to change. It has to look at practices and procedures which disadvantage women. We have to accept that women have shared needs, separate needs and special needs. Those differences enhance, not damage, our democratic process. The concept of gender equality can be extraordinarily difficult to comprehend in a society where the processes are inevitably and for reasons of history in the hands of a single, dominant male culture. That will have to change. Now is the time to ensure that we do precisely that. This legislation on gender equality points that way, but I hope that this is a small step forward. Once we establish a pattern of success in the political arena, we need to take forward the principle of equality for women in all walks of public life.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, it is now well over a century since the movement for equal rights for women began. We all remember with deep admiration Pankhurst the Equaliser. The aim of the movement was clear—women to have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges that men enjoyed and to have the right to be part of decision-making.
	The very fact that this Bill is before us today shows that the issue remains a problem. The question today is, how is this problem to be solved? It is quite obvious that there has been gross discrimination against women in all aspects of life. Over time our man-made laws have perpetuated that discrimination. That is one good reason for supporting the Bill. It cannot be unfair if we seek to redress the balance by any legitimate means necessary. There need to be changes in the laws and practices that govern our institutions to convince not only men but also some women that equality will not just happen but has to be addressed—hence the Bill today seeking affirmative action.
	The case for affirmative action is clear. In the history of mankind runs a thread of much repeated injury and absurdity as regards what women can and cannot do. History also testifies to the patient sufferance of women under male dominated governance which in the 21st century leaves women in the position where they are forced to seek affirmative action in order to achieve the equal status to which we all agree they are entitled. That is the second good reason for the Bill.
	It is not difficult to understand why women have not attained true equality with men in the political arena. Men do not truly believe that women have the intellect to occupy seats of power. Alas, some women do not themselves believe it even though some have broken the glass ceiling by demonstrating their remarkable abilities. I think of the well known song, "You'll take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland afore ye". Why should women be forced to take the high road with its many bumps and bruises when all that is needed to make the low road accessible is to appreciate that prejudices need a little help to get rid of them?
	We are all acquainted with the notion of handicaps in horse racing. Women are not asking for men to be given extra burdens; they are saying that to make the playing field even you must recognise the deep-seated prejudices that exist which have allowed men a long tradition of men only lists. The public get the best man for the job. However, taking affirmative action would give the voter the choice of the best person for the job.
	On a personal level I feel able to support the Bill because of the double discrimination meted out to women of colour. Both as a woman and a black person it is difficult for me to see how these twin prejudices could be overcome without some form of direct action from the law. Here I must remind the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the Bakke case has never been conclusive.
	The qualities brought by women to the political arena would be unique. Men do not need to feel threatened by women. When women take their rightful place alongside men, healthy, honest and robust debates will truly enrich the political agenda. The break-through now needs a final push. Affirmative action from the political parties can no longer be left on a low burner. We need to take all the legitimate measures necessary to eliminate discrimination from the public and political life of our country, as set out by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Some progress has been made but it has not fully worked. It needs a little push, which I believe this Bill will provide.
	Both education and laws that are enforceable are needed to overcome deep-seated prejudice. That is why I ask noble Lords to take today, without any frills or statistics, noble and gallant action to end discrimination by supporting affirmative action to redress the balance. That would be the right thing to do, and that is why I welcome this Bill.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I begin by stating that I am very much in favour of taking positive action. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Ildlicote, and my noble friend Lady Morgan of Huyton, I am sad that it is still necessary to do so; but it is still necessary. As my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford said in the other place, there is,
	"chronic under-representation of women in all our elected bodies".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/01; col. 900.]
	and that this Bill will go some way towards making our democracy more representative and should also redress gross inequalities which work against women being chosen as candidates.
	This Bill has been designed to remove the uncertainties created by what has come to be known—it has been referred to before today—as the Jepson judgment. I served on the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1996, when the employment tribunal ruled that all-women shortlists were illegal and Mr Jepson for a brief period of time became a celebrity. Both the commissioners and the staff of the EOC hoped that there would be an appeal against the judgment, but understood why the Labour Party felt that it could not appeal at that time.
	Since 1996, political parties have been very wary of using positive action to reduce gender inequalities. This Bill should set at rest the minds of those who want to take positive steps for more women in Parliament. The sunset clause to measure its effectiveness, or otherwise, can eventually be reviewed and, if necessary, amended.
	I followed the debate in the other place with interest. There were some excellent speeches and some strange ones. One female honourable Member claimed that the Labour Party wanted to use the Bill to debar a man from being selected even when he had far greater merit as a candidate. That is really not so. As others have said, the Bill aims to create a level playing field for men and women—no more, no less.
	The same honourable Member went on to criticise trade unions in a speech which I am afraid showed a sad lack of understanding of the trade union movement. Today I want to speak about how the trade union movement has changed and taken positive steps to improve the lot of women. Here I declare an interest as a former member of the TUC General Council and a senior official of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union. There have, of course, been close links for decades between women in the unions and women in political parties. Women trade unionists were active campaigners for votes for women, believing that women's voices in Parliament would make the legislation that was enacted more sympathetic to and positive for women workers. The woman who, above all others, interlinked women in the unions and in Parliament was Margaret Bondfield. She was a member of the shop assistants union, now known as USDAW. She was the first woman to chair the TUC general council, the first woman Labour MP—representing Northampton—in the House of Commons and the first woman member of the Cabinet, becoming Minister of Labour in 1928. The links between trade union women and political women were firmly established many years ago.
	Why is that important for and linked to women's representation in Parliament? Because unions have an important influence in the selection of and support for parliamentary candidates, especially, but not exclusively, in the Labour Party. I want to illustrate the importance of positive action by discussing the steps that the TUC, rather than its affiliates, has taken to improve women's representation and its effects.
	Currently, out of 46 members of the TUC general council, 12 are women. That is approximately 24 per cent, which tallies roughly with the percentage of women in trade unions. That increase from what was for many years a token number of women—that is, two—to the figure of 12 today did not happen by chance. It happened because when Norman Willis was general-secretary of the TUC, he recognised two things. First, he recognised that unions needed to increase women's membership, because women were becoming an increasingly important part of the workforce. If women were not recruited into the unions, a potentially important and influential part of the workforce would be isolated from the main body of trade unionism, thus weakening the unions. In turn, women would be alienated from the unions.
	Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, Norman Willis is a man who genuinely believes in equality between the sexes. He recognised the injustice of women being represented at only the lower echelons of the trade union movement. So Norman introduced positive action. That did not happen without opposition from the gentlemen serving on the general council at the time, but that was overcome. Positive action took the form that every union that was affiliated to the TUC and with more than 100,000 members had an automatic extra seat on the TUC general council, and that seat had to be filled by a woman member. Undoubtedly, that changed the TUC fundamentally. Not only were women on the general council; they were also on each and every sub-committee. Their voices were heard. Above all, they became role models for other women in their own and other unions.
	Since that time of change, the TUC has continued to pioneer on behalf of women trade unionists. It has established an organising academy that is training new generations of trade unionists—organisers in the unions—who will aim to recruit women members and young people in particular. Many of those new organisers are women.
	The more that women become involved in the unions, the more they are likely to become active at a national level and involved in political work, including standing for Parliament. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. Positive action is needed not because women are not good enough to be selected as candidates on their own merit but because the discrimination that they face ensures that only too often they do not get a chance to try.
	Finally, I firmly believe that only when 50 per cent of the other place comprises women can we say that it truly reflects our nation's needs and aspirations.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, the Bill is not about favouritism, unfair discrimination or patronising gestures for women. It simply recognises the fact that women form the majority of people in this country but are very under-represented in many of our elected institutions. It is about giving political parties more opportunities to counter the discrimination suffered by women which means that many of those institutions fail to be properly representative of the people who elect them.
	I think that the Bill's non-prescriptive approach is right. It could be very dangerous for government or Parliament to take too much control over how political parties choose their candidates. But it will be of assistance to all parties if legal barriers to making their candidates more representative of the country as a whole are lowered.
	The Bill will help to address one of the many areas holding back fair representation of women although I believe that many more fundamental issue are also relevant. Those issues involve disposable income, time availability and voting systems as well as working practices, the image and culture of the institutions, and confidence and experience.
	The issues of disposable income and time availability are, I believe, particularly pertinent in my own party in that we do not have "safe seats" to allocate and our candidates generally have to work far harder and for far longer for a chance of electoral success—and our party has relatively little finance to support them.
	The Bill is necessary because there are certainly elements of both covert and overt discrimination in political parties. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill referred to this point. It must be tackled perhaps through existing sex and racial discrimination. It is very hard sometimes to see how that legislation can be applied when people have private thoughts which are not recorded in a secret ballot. Sadly, I still hear people in my own party saying about a particular seat, "A woman could never be elected". The evidence is now to the contrary. Polling evidence suggests that men are no longer less likely to vote for a woman than for a man. But some women are more likely to vote for a woman than for a man. So it should be an electoral advantage to be a woman. Sadly, discrimination remains. Different remedies may be put forward by different parties for different electoral systems.
	For example, my party agreed to put forward for the last European elections a mechanism known as "zipping". The system allowed both women and men to become MEPs but ensured that half of those elected would be women and half of them men. At 49 per cent it was the highest proportion of female candidates ever put forward for a national election by a major political party in Great Britain. Last week, Diana Wallis, MEP, became the first female leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the European Parliament.
	However, we faced the threat of a potentially expensive legal challenge over our candidate selection process. We received conflicting advice from eminent and sometimes noble sources. The advice that we followed ultimately came in part from no less a person than Cherie Booth, QC. Her advice was to the effect that we would win in Europe but that the Sex Discrimination Act was a problem for us in domestic law. While I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not have dared to question such an authority as Cherie Booth, QC, there were those in our party who, we feared, could almost bankrupt the party with huge legal costs, even if they would fail ultimately in their challenge.
	I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that if enacted the Bill would not prevent all legal challenges to this or other gender balancing mechanisms in the future. However, it would remove much of the ground from under those who sought to oppose what my party did for the European elections and those who sought to oppose the Labour Party's chosen mechanism for selecting candidates for the general election in 1997.
	International experience suggests that positive action of some kind is an essential part of ensuring fairer representation of women in elected institutions. But it is my firm view that such mechanisms may fit in much more easily with electoral systems that are not based entirely on single member constituencies.
	Systems of proportional representation undoubtedly tend to make for much fairer representation of women, as well as of political opinions. I am not an enthusiast for list systems, especially the closed variety. But lists make it easier and more desirable for a party to balance the tickets of the candidates they present.
	I ask the Government to think again about the issue of open lists for the next European elections. It is particularly relevant to this debate to note what happened, for example, in relation to open lists in the parliamentary elections in Finland. When the parties all placed their favoured men for the top places on top of their lists, the women voters simply crossed out the names of the men and the women further down the list were elected instead. When the parties realised that they were losing all their best men through their actions, they had to mend their ways and put a balance of women and men at the top of their lists in order for their best people to be elected. That type of system puts power where it belongs—with the people and not with the parties.
	Countries with systems of proportional representation tend to have far higher representation by women. It is not a coincidence that Sweden with 43 per cent of female MPs, Denmark with 37 per cent, Finland with 36 per cent, the Netherlands with 36 per cent and Germany with 31 per cent all have such a system in place.
	I believe that the single transferable vote system would be eminently suitable for any election to your Lordships' House in the future. It would encourage parties to put forward men and women in multi-member constituencies. It would almost certainly mean that far more women would be elected than under the present Westminster system where effectively there is a closed list of one person from each party. Only one is elected, and this June in 82 per cent of constituencies that person was a man.
	The Bill would also help parties to establish mechanisms to assist fair representation of women if ever, for example, the scheme put forward by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, were allowed to be judged by the electorate and then introduced. Parties could choose, for example, a majority of candidates from one gender in their single-member seats and then introduce a balance in whichever way was required by putting on top of the top-up list a person of the different gender.
	Many things must be done to address the issue of the inadequate representation of women, especially in the House of Commons. If parties fail to do so, they will ignore much of the considerable ability that should be available to them and to the country, they will skew the issues that are considered, and they will hinder their own electoral prospects in future by failing to show themselves as being representative of the country. This Bill will help to remove some of the barriers to taking action to make our legislatures and council chambers more effective, more representative and, in many ways, more sensible than they are now.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a delight to take part in this passionate debate in which the other speakers—noble Lords from all sides of the House—have for a significant part of their working lives been engaged in policy-making and, in some cases, policy-shaking to the benefit of women.
	Given that this is the last debate on the last day before the Recess, I hope that my Christmas shopping list will not get mixed up with my speaking notes. I hope that I shall be stopped if I start to call for pickled anchovies instead of positive action.
	First, I warmly welcome the Bill. I am delighted that my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House has opened and will be closing the debate. His presence sends the clearest signal, if one were needed, that this Government are greatly committed to the Bill. I also want to place on record my acknowledgement of the tremendous work undertaken in the creation and development of the Bill by my noble friends Lady Jay of Paddington and Lady Morgan.
	The inclusion of the Bill in the Queen's Speech was greeted by the EOC as "a turning point in history". Since the Bill progressed through its various stages in another place, we have seen a consensus build both within and without Parliament on the need for far more radical measures to ensure greater representation of women in political decision-making than is the case at present.
	Glancing at the report of the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, I was pleased to see that, despite a rather lengthy discourse on whether Cornish men and women feel the same way about female representation as their East Anglian counterparts, a bizarre and fleeting reference to Gladstone, and whether gender equality was ever a consideration in our recent internal elections for the remaining hereditary Peers, the right honourable Member Nick Raynsford was able to say that the Committee stage had been short but effective and had engendered a general spirit of agreement. At the Bill's Third Reading in another place the honourable Member, Dr Alan Whitehead, speaking for the Government, said:
	"It is a cause for celebration that the Bill's Third Reading will not be subject of a Division. That shows the strong commitment from all parties that they will take action to ensure that the House is properly representative of everyone in the country".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/01; col. 917.]
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I have confidence that such an all-party consensus will also emerge through deliberations on the Bill in this House.
	As chair of the Women's National Commission I have received many expressions of support for the Bill from women's organisations across the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, women in this country are the backbone of the voluntary sector and their voices should be heard to a far greater extent than they are at present. Political representation at local, national, regional and international level will assist in telling the story of women's great enrichment of our society far more clearly.
	It has been my pleasure, as chair of the Women's National Commission, to write to leaders of opposition parties to ask them to confirm their support for the Bill. From the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith, MP, Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, I have received an encouraging reply that states:
	"I certainly agree that we need to find effective ways of ensuring that able women candidates get the opportunities they deserve".
	While not favouring all-women shortlists, he goes on to say that he looks forward to ensuring that the Conservative Party is able to attract and properly support—that is very important—able women candidates. Other replies are pending.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is a beacon on the road to women's equality in this country. I am inclined to the view of other noble Lords that the way in which the Bill has been written will mean that it will steer a strong legal course.
	Despite the fair wind that the Bill has so far received, there will be those in all parties who still need to be persuaded. Two arguments that are often put forward by those who oppose any form of positive action are, first, that special measures such as twinning, zipping, all-women shortlists, or even extra training and support, somehow sap away talent and merit. Yet those same opponents will never acknowledge the lack of a level playing field, referred to by my noble friend Lady Howells.
	The lack of a level playing field affects talented women not being able to access candidate opportunities because there is a whole range of factors that affect them more acutely than their male counterparts. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made what I believe is an apposite point, that we have to start by looking at the vulnerable position of women in the labour market. There are also cultural influences that militate against women, some of which have been excellently portrayed this afternoon, and often the unwieldy structure of our party organisations militate very much against women.
	We end up with what the EOC describes, after interviewing 400 male and female candidates at the last election, as the key problem of the apparent unwillingness of constituency parties to select women candidates who relate to the parties best prospect seats. As the EOC sees it, and as several noble Lords see it, the key is that the best prospect seats are jealously guarded in relation to women's opportunities.
	The figures are fairly damning and actually answer the second argument that opponents of special measures frequently raise, which is that "not enough women come forward for selection". In the three main political parties, plenty of women came forward for the seats of retiring MPs at the last election and for the most winnable seats. Yet again and again the selectorate in each of those seats chose a male candidate until only a small minority of those best prospect seats went to successful women candidates. Were all those unsuccessful women just not up to it? I think not. Was some unspoken indirect, perhaps even unconscious, discrimination at work? I definitely think so.
	We have in the Bill a real opportunity to begin tackling the long-standing barriers that face women in the political process. We have an opportunity to climb from our inglorious place of 33rd in the world's league table, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said. While we rightly speak about the possibilities for women—for instance in Afghanistan—we must look to our own shop and our own house. We have the opportunity and the chance with the Bill to shine as a modern Parliament, in touch with its diverse electorate. Therefore, when people see their politicians at work, they will see reflections of themselves—male and female, younger and older, people from minority ethnic communities and people with disabilities. All parties are rightly concerned at the lower election turnouts and some evidence of voter alienation from the political process is at work. Engaging more women in politics will inevitably mean engaging more of our communities in the democratic process.
	Finally, I went to the Library for inspiration for today's debate. I discovered—not by physically counting them I hasten to add—that, of the 60,000 books in the House of Lords Library, 18 contained the word "woman" in the title and 191 contained the word "women". Let us hope that our influence on the political and historical culture of Parliament will be far greater in the future as a result of the Bill.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this is the first Bill on which I have spoken where I have had several people come up to me in advance to ask me what I shall say. So it is very comforting to know that several Members of your Lordships' House are avidly waiting to hear what I have to say.
	I rise to make a short contribution. It is not my intention to discuss the merits of the Bill as such. Rather I wish to address the principle that underpins the Bill and consider the consequences deriving from that principle.
	I have the honour to chair the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House. The committee has reported on the Bill. The report does not address the merits of the Bill but instead considers the Bill in relation to the principle of representation. I want to develop the points adumbrated in the committee's report.
	The Bill that is before us cannot be discussed or justified simply or solely in terms of equal opportunities. If that were the case, the provisions of the Bill would not extend to Northern Ireland. Responsibility for equal opportunities has been transferred under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. What distinguishes the Bill, and the reason that it extends to Northern Ireland, is that it involves elections. Fundamental to elections is the concept of representation.
	The Bill derives from a certain view of representation. That view is implicit rather than explicit. There is a House of Commons Library research paper on the Bill. As with other such research papers produced by the Commons Library, it is an excellent document. The paper considers women's representation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and identifies different methods of increasing the representation of women in the House of Commons and other parliamentary bodies in the United Kingdom.
	At no point, however, does it address the principle that underpins the Bill. It takes it as given that the number of women in the House of Commons and other elected assemblies should be increased. My purpose is not to argue that that number should not be increased, but rather to argue that we need to be clear about the principle that justifies that increase.
	The justification normally offered for an increase is that women are presently under-represented in the other place—for convenience, I shall focus on the other place—as well as in the other bodies covered by the Bill. I shall quote from the House of Commons Library research paper:
	"Women are still poorly represented in UK politics".
	The key word is "represented". The Labour Party manifesto for the last election argues the case for legislation in order to increase
	"the representation of women".
	We have heard similar comments throughout this debate. The case for change is built on the belief that the House of Commons should be a representative Assembly.
	I doubt whether many people would argue with the proposition that the House of Commons should be a representative institution. The problem is that the concept of representation is subject to different definitions, which are briefly outlined in the Constitution Committee report.
	One definition of representation is that it denotes people who speak on behalf of others. That has been the definition that has underpinned the development of Parliament—indeed, it is at the root of the emergence of the House of Commons. Members were originally drawn from particular communities in order to speak on behalf of those communities. The House of Commons was a representative Assembly even before the concept itself developed. That definition of representation continues to underpin the House of Commons. A Member of Parliament is deemed to act on behalf of all constituents, regardless of whether or not they voted for the Member.
	A second definition of representation, which gained greater currency during and since the 19th century, is that of a body that is freely elected. That definition may be taken to encompass not only the method of election but also who does the electing. The House of Commons, under that definition, is a representative Assembly because all adult citizens now have the vote and can choose who they wish to serve them in Parliament. It is that definition which justified the various measures of the 19th and 20th centuries that widened the franchise. It can also be taken to underpin measures to widen the choice available to electors. Widening the eligibility to stand for election can be justified on grounds of equal opportunities, but may also be justified because it widens the freedom of choice of the electors.
	A third definition of representation, and one central to this debate, is that it denotes a group that is socially typical. It is in that sense that market researchers refer to a representative sample. It is that definition that forms the basis for the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to enable parties, should they wish to do so, to make certain arrangements that will facilitate the return of a greater number of women than before to the House of Commons. Why? Because, as we have heard throughout the debate, although women constitute just over 50 per cent of the adult population, only 18 per cent of the members of the House of Commons are women. The implication—indeed, it has been made explicit in this debate—is that, if they constitute at least half of the population, they should constitute half, or something approaching half, of the membership of the House of Commons.
	A fourth definition, on which I shall not dwell, is that of symbolism. The Queen, for example, represents the unity of the nation. That use of the term is not central to the debate, although some might argue that the number of women in Parliament has been little more than symbolic.
	It is, then, the third definition—representation as denoting a socially typical body—that is employed to justify the Bill. It is important that we recognise that explicitly, because it raises important questions. That definition does not necessarily conflict with the other definitions, but it is not necessarily compatible with them either. One might pose the question of whether it runs counter to the post-1832 trend of widening the category of those eligible for election. In so far as it may restrict a certain category of citizens in seeking election, as party candidates, to the House of Commons, it may be argued to do so. I appreciate that there is a counter argument; one which may be taken to justify the Bill.
	More significantly, as the report of my committee notes, the Bill sets a precedent. If the Bill is predicated on the belief that the membership of the House of Commons should be socially typical, that has enormous consequences for our approach to the selection and election of parliamentary candidates. The House of Commons is atypical in its membership not only in respect of sex but also in respect of many other characteristics. Those include age, physical ability, ethnicity and prior occupation. There are others, some of which are observable and immediately measurable, some of which are not.
	The logic of the case underpinning the Bill is that those various groupings should have some of their number in the House of Commons, arguably in proportion to their number in society. If one concedes the case for a socially typical House, or a more socially typical House, one has to ask how such a House can be achieved. In short: is a socially typical House of Commons desirable? Is it achievable?
	The first concept of representation I mentioned is silent as to who can act on behalf of others. It was argued initially that one could speak on behalf of a particular body without being drawn from that body or indeed without being elected by that body. The latter assumption is no longer made; it has been superseded by the second definition of representation. However, the former assumption—that someone can speak on behalf of others without being drawn from the same group—is still argued. MPs who are men will claim that they can speak for all their constituents; MPs who are women will claim that they can speak for all their constituents.
	Why, then, should we seek to fashion a House of Commons that is socially typical? I ask the question not in order to challenge the Bill but rather to ensure that we proceed on the basis of a clear, rigorous argument. If we can articulate, fully and persuasively, the case for the Bill on the ground of a clear principle, that strengthens the Bill enormously. Having articulated that principle, we then need to think through the consequences. If the Bill derives from the belief that a representative House of Commons equals a socially typical House, we need to be aware that the Bill does not constitute the end of a process. It is very much the beginning of one. The question I therefore put to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is: where to from here?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Norton, sits down, I wonder whether he will answer a question. Why does he say that the justification for the Bill is that the House of Commons should be socially typical rather than that every individual candidate, as an individual human being, should be treated on his or her merits, irrespective of gender, and that the Bill is designed to achieve that by taking proportionate, positive measures to enable each individual human being to be treated in that way rather than having approved quotas?

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I do not argue with that because there is a powerful argument to that effect. My point was that the Bill has been argued in terms of representation. That term has been used throughout; for example, that women are under-represented in the House of Commons. I was merely addressing the issue from that perspective and arguing that if one is taking that line—and I was silent on the merits of the Bill—and if one is arguing from the concept of representation—that is not the only argument one can take and I did not mean to suggest that it was—one must be clear as to the principle on the basis of which one is arguing. I was arguing solely within the confines of that concept.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I regret that no one has asked me what I am going to say but I am going to say it just the same! I welcome and support the legislation. It is only a short Bill but it has the potential, over the years, to have a profound effect on the culture not only of Parliament but possibly also of local councils. In turn, it will have a profound effect on the British way of life. Notwithstanding what the media and commentators might say, I still believe that parliaments, whether on the international, European, nation state or local council level, still have a major impact and influence on the fabric of our society. We only need an event like the tragedy of September 11th to see how much we still rely on collective action; that the individualism sought by society is not supreme; and that we need to work together at different levels.
	The legislation before the House will provide a much-needed opportunity for more women to enter politics, to get into Parliament and local councils. They will be more fairly represented than is the case at the moment. Furthermore, women will be able to become leaders and gain more influence, both in our own society and throughout the world. I shall return to that fundamental point in a moment. I believe that that will be for the betterment of us all, men included. I submit that that is the case for change. That is also my response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, as regards the fundamental reason for the legislation.
	To pick up on the noble Lord's second point, I believe that the Bill could also pave the way for under-representation in national politics to be tackled on other grounds. In due course, is there any reason why, if ethnic minority groups wanted it, we should not address the possibility of making changes in representation at council and parliamentary level to meet their needs? Is there a case, if they want it, for the many millions in our society with disabilities who feel that they are not necessarily properly represented in debate at both local and national level, similarly to argue that changes should be made in our approach? I freely admit that those proposals are well down the line and may never happen, but there is the possibility that this small Bill could provide the foundation from which substantial developments could take place.
	I am pleased that the legislation will be permissive and not prescriptive. We should not force parties to do things that they do not want to do, even if we believe that those are the right things to do.
	The use of women-only shortlists by Labour in the period 1993-96 was extremely successful in turning around the way we selected and brought people into Parliament. We had not witnessed a change on that scale before. I was a strong supporter of the shortlists. It also demonstrated the clear divide that exists between some of the political parties—here I refer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I do not want to be unduly political about it because I believe that we are seeking consensus here, but the shortlists demonstrated a clear divide between ourselves and the Conservative Party. However, this is a difficult area and changes are needed. If they are not effected, not only will certain groups be perceived as slow to move on, they may even find themselves left behind.
	Yesterday I read in this month's Parliamentary Monitor that the Conservatives are starting to face up to the need for change:
	"The Tory Party is considering introducing quotas requiring parliamentary shortlists to be made up equally of men and women in a bid to increase the number of female MPs. The move was backed by the Conservative Women's National Council, which met last month. Gillian Shephard, the former cabinet minister, has been given the task of increasing the number of female MPs".
	I do not make my contribution in any critical sense as regards the Conservative Party, because I regret the problems which currently it has to face. However, I do not envy Gillian Shephard's task because the evidence of the Labour Party's recent experience is that, while one can aim for a 50:50 split on a shortlist, it does not produce the opportunity for more women MPs to come into Parliament. As I have said, that has been our experience from the last election onwards. I fear that if the Conservatives go down that route, it may turn out to be too little, too late. However, under the Bill it is left for parties to make up their own minds on the best way forward.
	My own experience of the difficult issue of positive action derives from my background in the trade union movement where, when I first went in, it was very much "the brothers" with relatively little mention of "the sisters". As my noble friend Lady Gibson has demonstrated, life there is changing to some degree but, looking back, even there it has been difficult to make headway without some kind of strong, positive action.
	In the Inland Revenue Staff Federation, of which I was general-secretary for a number of years, more than 60 per cent of our members were women and less than 40 per cent were males. Yet, when one looked at what was happening in the union, it was overwhelmingly the males who held the levers of power at almost every level. It proved very difficult to introduce changes, especially when one looked at the real areas of power at executive council and executive council sub-committee level. It was a real uphill struggle to get a better balance between the genders.
	I have often thought that if the Tories had adopted a different approach in relation to the Thatcher employment legislation—particularly in respect of elections of executive councils and so on—and had taken into account the need to ensure that there was better representation between the genders on important decision-taking bodies such as executive councils, and if they had framed their legislation accordingly, there may have been some interesting out-turns, from a variety of standpoints, which would have been beneficial not only to them but to the trade union movement and to women in particular.
	We have made big progress in many areas within the trade union movement but there remain some areas where there are substantial opportunities—and a need—for change to be effected. My noble friend Lady Dean may say more on this. There is still work to be done by the present Government on the issue of elections and representation of membership within unions. I log the point for them. Perhaps they may come to it in due course.
	During my time as general-secretary, it was my experience that when we managed to get change and women were able to gain entry into, particularly, sub-committees that had power, which had been hitherto the exclusive preserve of men, we found that there was a remarkable change in the way in which we worked and developed our policies. I make no bones about it, rather like my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, I went through a conversion. As a result of my experience there, I became a convert to, and a strong supporter of, positive action—notwithstanding the difficulties that we may encounter from time to time with a bit of legislation here and there that may be used by others against us. The reality is that it works in practice and produces good results.
	There were, of course, accusations that, by using positive action, we were being patronising. I must admit, I took that rather hard. It was difficult when one felt that one was trying to effect change but was being accused of being patronising. Unfortunately, much of that criticism came from women. The accusations from men were on the other side—that is, that we were being discriminatory and grossly unfair on them. The fact that they controlled most of the levers of power seemed to escape them. But those were the allegations.
	I was pleased that the Labour Party faced up to similar difficulties when it was reviewing its way forward and considering how it might get more women Labour MPs into Parliament. It was bold enough to override that kind of criticism. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Jay, Lady Morgan and others who have been closely associated with keeping the flag flying and getting back, I hope, to the position that we held between 1992 and 1996.
	I hope that we will continue to be bold, notwithstanding objections which may be raised on the legal front. What we are about is a kind of social engineering. I know that that is much despised and ridiculed by some people, but I do not think that it is a bad thing in a world that is driven by markets and circumstances in which the winners take all. We could possibly do with a little more social engineering. The Bill will be welcomed particularly by women and, I hope, by most men too. I hope that it will come into force and that we shall see the changes that so many of us want to witness.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. It is permissive, short, simple and long awaited. I am delighted, and feel privileged, to take part in a debate with noble Lords—indeed, friends—on all sides of the House who have spent a great deal of their lives working in this area and pushing forward the cause of women. My colleagues are not speaking out of ideology but from their own "feet-on-the-ground" experience.
	I see the Bill as a start in tackling, not a solution to, the problem. I do not think that any of us are kidding ourselves that when the Bill becomes an Act—as it appears will happen given the degree of consensus—it is to be hoped, unamended, it will all be easy sailing. It will not.
	Through all the various changes for women, it has never been easy. When women received the vote in 1928—when many of us were not even thought of—their idea was: "Now we really are going to make a change". That did not happen in many respects. I remember Barbara Castle—one of my heroines—being castigated in another place in 1975 for introducing the Equal Pay Act. It was said that all women in work would lose their jobs and that the legislation would not help women. The same was true of the sex discrimination legislation. I am not making a political point, but when Mrs Thatcher was elected Prime Minister—much as I did not agree for political reasons—I felt that now we might see women in the Cabinet and that they would drive forward policies for women. We were, of course, dreadfully disappointed. Therefore, the Bill is essential. I hope that it will become law.
	Reference was made to the judgment that found the Labour Party to be acting illegally in introducing all-women short-lists. The law may have been right and the Labour Party may have been wrong, but the blunt fact is that the present outcome was essential. That is why, down the corridor in another place, 23 per cent of members of the party in government are now women.
	The problem lies in ensuring that progress is maintained. Past experience indicates that things start to go wrong when it comes to succession. We saw that at the last general election, not just in one party but across all three. We have seen the same in the trade union movement. The movement is not covered by the Bill, but—who knows?—if the Bill is a success there may be just cause in the future.
	I was privileged to sit on the TUC General Council as a general secretary elected by my union. One-third of the membership were women. There were two other women general secretaries on the council at that time: Liz Symons, as she was then known, the very able Deputy Leader of this House, and Diana Warwick, who is also now a Member on these Benches. None of us was replaced by a woman general secretary. We see that kind of development in all the various agencies in our community. However, if we do not start to make a change where we can—as a Parliament—the necessary changes will not come about.
	I have known the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, who is also a friend, more years than I care to mention. I shall not embarrass either myself or the noble Baroness by stating the number of years. We worked together through the Women's National Commission, pushing forward women's issues. We both genuinely felt that we were making progress. Now, when I look back, 25 years later, I see that we were making progress, but with insufficient speed. More importantly, we were not able to bed the roots of that progress so that the involvement of women became a way of public life.
	I too have read the reports of the Bill's various stages in the other House. People may have been too embarrassed to oppose the Bill outright, but all kinds of silly reasons have been put forward. One Member from the party that I am proud to be a member of argued, "How dare you stop a good man coming forward". He assumed that there were no good women. One honourable lady from the main Opposition party said that there was no need to do it this way because there were other ways. I heard that argument many years ago, but nobody has ever explained what the other ways are and no other ways have worked.
	I shall not take up any more of the House's time. I wish the Bill good speed. I hope that there will be a consensus behind it and that it will not be amended. It will then be incumbent on the political parties, under the permissive aspects of the Bill, to start to embed it in their own organisations and make it a way of life.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like everyone who has spoken, I welcome the Bill. It is encouraging that that welcome has come from all round the House. We hope that that will continue as the Bill progresses through its stages.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I praise the two women Ministers who piloted the Bill from its initial stages. It is good that they are here today. They were aware that timing is very important for the Bill. It is important that we get it through in order to be able to make changes at the relevant party conferences if the political parties so choose so that the details of the Bill can be implemented. Even if changes are not made in Scotland and Wales, I hope that parties there will take note of the existence of the legislation and maintain their high levels of women representatives.
	I am pleased that we now have a date for the Committee stage—21st January, in case it is not already in noble Lords' diaries. Like other speakers, I regret that the legislation is necessary. Overt discrimination and sexual harassment are still prevalent in our political parties. Attitudes have barely changed since the days, an awful long time ago, when I considered being a parliamentary candidate. On one occasion I was asked, on entering the room, "Whose wife are you?". At another selection for a safe seat I was told that I lost by one vote—I was the best candidate, but I looked too fragile. I do not think that anybody could ever accuse me of that, physically or in any other way. The man who told me was embarrassed and had to give some reason.
	The evidence from the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fawcett Society clearly illustrates that many well qualified and able women are not being selected because of the prejudice that is still ingrained in the process, as so many others have already said. That attitude has to change. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, but we cannot wait. We have waited an awful long time for attitudes to change. It is not going to happen with any great speed. Positive action is crucial and it is urgently needed if women are to win winnable seats.
	Other speakers have talked about the measures taken by other European countries. I shall not repeat those arguments. I have only one point to make on that subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, quoted the position in France, where, at national level elections, parties can have their state funding cut if they do not field gender equity of candidates. Much as I would like to go down that road, I have a little problem with it, because it is a direct interference in the internal workings of political parties. I am not sure that we are ready for that yet.
	I have recently rediscovered on my bookshelves a small book, just 23 pages long, called Rights of Women, by a man called J.R. Richardson. There is some coincidence in the name, which reminds me of Jo Richardson and her fight for women with a similar appeal. J. R. Richardson was a Chartist, and what is special about his book is that it was written in 1840 while he was in prison for his beliefs. He wrote that, based on the Bible, there was a strong case that women had a natural, civil and political right to participate fully in the affairs of the country. At the time, that was seditious propaganda; listening to some people, I fear that it is still considered seditious. Nevertheless, he argued that it was derogatory to the divine will,
	"for her to neglect so imperative a duty",
	and that arrangements had to be made to enable her to carry out that duty.
	I wonder how J. R. Richardson would have felt about the slow progress that we have made and how he would have analysed the reasons for it. That is not to say, as other speakers have said, that there have not been various points in the past 150 years when we have felt that we were on our way to achieving J. R. Richardson's ideal, but it has been a very long process, and we have always to remember the endeavours of the many distinguished and the many ordinary women who over the years have contributed to that progress, slow as it has been.
	The introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1975 raised great expectations that attitudes would change and that women would be appointed and elected to key decision-making bodies in Westminster. What was not expected was that, 25 years later, it would be necessary to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to achieve a part of that aim.
	As the two former Ministers for Women said, we were also sufficiently naive as Labour women to believe that the introduction of all-women shortlists, in 1997, and the presence of more women MPs would not only change the culture of our party, but reverberate throughout the other parties. We have learned a lesson: it was not to be.
	A theme that has run throughout this debate is that the country cannot afford to under-use half its talent. Moreover, women's under-representation creates a distance between elected representatives and a proportion of the electorate. Women electors must be able to see Parliament as reflecting society generally. Although there is no such thing as a typical woman, just as there is no such thing as a typical man, what women have to say comes just as much from their age, race, sexuality and social circumstances as from their gender. Women parliamentarians do, however, make a difference in a whole range of issues. They bring an experience of different occupational backgrounds, different life experiences and, unfortunately, the almost distinct experience of having to balance work and home responsibilities.
	There are many examples, as cited by my noble friend Lady Morgan, of the effects that women have had in the other place—the influence of women MPs. I am sure that, by a strategy of private intervention and behind-the-scenes pressures, there is a greater sensitivity to the impact of policies on the needs of women.
	We are often told by opponents of positive action that there is not discrimination, but that women are "congenitally" unsuited to be a Minister or an MP—in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—or that there is a lack of women coming forward for selection. Scotland and Wales have proved that not to be true. Given the right environment in the political parties, women will come forward. There is a pool of talent composed of women who are engaged and active in their local communities, and we have to ensure that they take that one step further whether it is as local councillors or in Westminster.
	Little has been said by your Lordships about the position in local government, but I should like to make one point about it. We talk about the small percentage of women councillors, at 26 per cent overall, but that is a false figure. It is false because it masks the real differences in different parts of the country, from 5 per cent in some local authorities to 55 per cent in others. We certainly have to do something about the 5 per cent. Just as the nature and style of working in the House of Commons must change, there must also be a reassessment of the culture of local government, which in many areas is still based on long traditions of male dominance and all that that means and goes with it.
	I believe that this legislation is another step towards equality of elected representation and that ultimately, although not through this legislation, we need to go further. Achieving real equality means women being visible and active participants at all levels of decision-making, local and national, in the Civil Service, in the media, in the financial institutions, in industry and on public bodies. For me, that is the only guarantee of a proper functioning democracy.
	Meanwhile, this legislation will allow political parties to introduce positive action mechanisms significantly to increase the proportion of women elected representatives. I hope that they will all do so, behaving proportionately and sensibly while in no way being diverted from the goal of achieving gender equality.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, it is now 83 years since women were given the vote and were allowed to enter Parliament. There is a document displayed only yards from here, in the Royal Gallery, recording the initiation of that process in 1884. I always show it to guests to this place when they are being given a tour.
	It is also about 40 years since the contraceptive pill became commonplace and women started to take their rightful place in the workplace through having the opportunity to plan their families and careers alongside each other. And yet, as we have heard from the Leader of the House and others today, still only 18 per cent of our MPs are women.
	Members of Parliament are, of course, only one type of political animal, albeit the kings and queens of the jungle. Other legislatures also have far too few women. However, I find it interesting, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that despite the fact that the majority of Members of your Lordships' House are appointed, the percentage here is even lower at 16 per cent. That indicates to me that there is a problem about women's political representation which is far wider than merely the problem of getting women elected.
	I think it rather sad that there are not as many noble Lords on these Benches today as there are noble Baronesses. Discrimination, in all its manifestations, is a matter that should concern us all.
	It is, of course, the under-representation of women that concerns us. I do not believe that any of the legislatures mentioned in the Bill have a problem with fair representation of men. Getting more women into Parliament is vital for our whole democracy. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lord Rennard how the lack of women in Parliament may have started to affect the turn-out of women in elections, particularly young women. We have heard also from my noble friend Lord Rennard how women, when they do choose to vote, have their own way of making their wishes known.
	As my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood pointed out, international evidence shows that only proportionate, temporary, positive action has achieved the objective of bringing women in Parliament up to a critical mass. It is often said that you need at least one-third of women in an organisation to make a real difference to its culture. I believe that that is true. Those countries and we, in the UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, mentioned, have found that women make good MPs, MEPs, MSPs, assembly members and councillors, bringing their vital but different perspective to the deliberations of their assemblies. We must encourage awareness of and respect for difference.
	The fact that Britain is 33rd in the world in the league table of women's representation is not something of which to be proud. My own party has had particular difficulty in achieving fair representation in the House of Commons, a matter that is of great concern to myself and all my noble friends. As we have heard, we share with all parties difficulty with replacing retiring male MPs with new women MPs. There are clearly many favourite sons but very few favourite daughters.
	However, we are discussing today a big step forward in the legal context within which women fight to represent their community. This Bill, apart from the specific ways in which it changes UK law, also sends out an important message to the citizens of our country. It says that we want women to participate fully at all levels of government; that we need and value their contribution; and we are the poorer for lack of it.
	We on these Benches welcome the Bill and are deeply committed to what it seeks to achieve. In fact, our party's very constitution enshrines our firm opposition to any discrimination on the basis of gender as well as of faith, race, age or anything else. We believe that the United Kingdom cannot achieve the fair, free and open society we seek unless such discrimination is outlawed.
	There are times, of course, when action needs to be taken to nudge along a little equality of access to the corridors of power and to remove the barriers. The Bill we are discussing today is one such action and is therefore fully justified. However, the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to use all-women short lists as a mechanism for achieving gender balance in our parliamentary party even if the law were to allow it. That does not mean that we oppose appropriate and proportionate action to remove barriers and ensure women fair representation and opportunity.
	We already currently have legal mechanisms for election to our federal committees which ensure a fair balance. We used the zipping mechanism for the party lists in the last European election. We are delighted that half of our number of MEPs elected at that time were women. We are also delighted that they have since been joined by an additional number of men.
	We have ambitious targets. We ensure that selection committees are balanced and that short lists have at least one of each gender. We also insist on gender-neutral questions and mandatory training for selection committees in non-discriminatory practices. We offer special help and training to meet the needs of both genders with aspirations to enter all our legislatures.
	There are of course, apart from all-women short lists, many other mechanisms which will become open to us when this Bill is made law. Pairing and clustering seats have had considerable success in Scotland and other countries where women are now much more fairly represented. We have not as yet ruled out any of those.
	Your Lordships will know that we on these Benches are firmly committed to fair votes, otherwise known as proportional representation. There are many mechanisms of PR in operation all over the world. None of them in itself ensures fair representation of women. But different PR mechanisms can certainly help and can be used to achieve the objective of making sure that sections of a population receive their fair share of power. How that could be done is clearly a matter for debate at another time.
	We are happy, therefore, that this is an enabling Bill and not a prescriptive one. We did not seek to amend it in another place and we are unlikely to do so here. We are happy that the Bill contains a sunset clause, because if it has not achieved our objective by 2015, there is something else going wrong and other action may be needed—indeed, it should have already been taken.
	We are acutely aware that time is of the essence. Candidates for the most contentious seats in the House of Commons are already being selected by all political parties. It is therefore vital that this enabling legislation gets onto the statue book as soon as possible.
	Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that time will be made available early in the new year for the remaining stages of this Bill? In the light of the comments of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, I also ask the noble and learned Lord what protection the Government will give to political parties as they test the Bill in operation. I am sure that the Government do not intend that political parties, with good intentions in line with the objectives of the Bill, should have to face expensive legal challenges. Would public money be available to defend such cases in the interests of the rights of 51 per cent of our population who are female? It seems that that could be necessary despite the reassurance of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, that there are no barriers in EU law to the ways in which this Bill will probably be implemented.
	We are reassured that the Bill leaves all other protections of the Sex Discrimination Act intact. That is vitally important to ensure fairness across the whole of society. We see the Bill as part of the continuum of providing all our citizens with fair representation. Women are by far the biggest section of our community under-represented in public life, but as we have heard, there are others, too. Many of us are of the opinion that women can be the forerunners for others. If we can break the mould in favour of women, the largest group, we can more easily address the problem of under-representation of other groups too.
	We wish the Bill a fair wind and look forward to the forthcoming stages with optimism that it will contribute to the fairer representation of our whole community in all the local, national and international legislatures in which we participate. I cannot think of a better way to celebrate the beginning of the Christmas holidays than to have had the pleasure and privilege of taking part in this excellent debate.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, not least for their unanimity of support for the Bill. It is a particular pleasure for all of us that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Morgan, are present on this occasion as it is the culmination of a long struggle on both their parts.
	It is unusual in my experience of this House when a question of social policy is involved that one does not have a contribution from the Bishops or, indeed, the Law Lords, but I suppose that both excellent bodies of men would have been in some difficulty on this occasion!
	By and large everyone agrees on the thrust of the measure. Particular questions were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and were touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I shall return to those in a moment or two.
	The noble Lord, Lord Norton, took a different stance. Not for the first time I was genuinely interested in what he had to say and not for the last time we find ourselves in some disagreement. First, this is not a measure to bring about a socially representative Parliament. That is not its only purpose. I believe that it seeks to bring about a House of Commons which is truly reflective of the society in which we live. Secondly, it will offer the House of Commons the opportunity to tap into a vast reservoir of wasted talent. Thirdly, it is a step towards doing away with endemic discrimination in this country.
	It was of interest to me, when I listened with care to all the speeches, to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, point out that women were first allowed to study law in 1901. She pointed out how far or how little we might have travelled a century later. The Bar Council, excellent body that it is, has had one female chair person in the whole of its history. The Law Society has not had a single female president. It will this coming year, if all goes well, in the form of an excellent solicitor from Swansea, Caroline Kirby. That just goes to show how foolish it is to be complacent and think that we have made any particular steps forward.
	My noble friend Lord Brooke spoke of the measure as—

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If he is saying that the purpose of the measure is to produce a House of Commons that is more reflective of society, I presume that he is not talking simply of a strict method of counting Members in the other place and also that the measure is designed to end discrimination. My point still holds that it is not just women who are discriminated against in that process and that if you want a House of Commons that is more reflective of society it is not just more women you need in it but other members of society as well. As the noble and learned Lord has made clear, he believes in variety in the membership of legislative chambers.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly. That is why this Chamber does rather better than the Commons in terms of variety. That demonstrates that pure democracy—if that is what it is—in terms of electing everyone does not necessarily produce the desired outcome. That is why I am sure that the Liberal Democrats will not urge an entirely elected House of Lords.
	I was asked why this Second Reading is being held on 20th December, rather late in the year. I should have thought that was perfectly plain. It is the birthday of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I wanted to offer her a decent present.
	My noble friend Lord Brooke spoke of this as a small Bill, which it is. It is one small Bill, one giant leap for womankind. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to say that this is only the beginning. We in this House shall have to attune ourselves to sensible ways of working, not simply to be family friendly but to be human friendly so that we can all do our work properly.
	On the legal questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked about the equal treatment directive. Our understanding is that that does not apply to the electoral process; in other words, selection for an election is not comparable to normal selection for employment. We are firm in our view on that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked a number of questions, to which I give this answer. On balance, we consider that the differential treatment of men and women envisaged by the Bill would be,
	"capable of being justified under ECHR Article 14 and would be unlikely to be held to be incompatible with Article 14 taken together with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1".
	I am afraid that that is a slight tease because, of course, I have just read a direct quotation from the Committee on which he serves; and there is more.
	We take the view that it would be possible for a political party to exercise the freedom to engage in positive discrimination in selecting candidates contained in the Bill in a manner that would be permissible under European Community law. Therefore, I think we are in agreement that the real question to be considered is not the one on which we disagree—namely, whether a political party is likely to be found to be a public authority—but whether the remedies must be proportionate to the evil detected. That, of course, depends on the particular circumstances that are found to obtain. In particular—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. First, on the European Union law issue, is he aware that the Jepson case was not about whether the electoral process fell within the scope of EU law but that the tribunal came to the conclusion so far as EU law was concerned—I am now reading from the decision—that Members of Parliament are engaged in an occupation involving public service, for which they receive remuneration from public funds, and that that is why it falls within the broad definition in the EU equality directive? Secondly, so far as the Select Committee is concerned, is he aware that, though we found the Bill compatible, we went on to say that political parties are public authorities and potentially liable under the Human Rights Act, under Article 3 read with Article 14 of the Convention?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was aware of both those points because the case of Jepson is contained in a footnote to the report. I was well aware of the view taken about whether or not the political party was a public authority. I believe that the Committee came to the conclusion, without attempting a definitive view, that it might well be. In any event, that is a matter for the courts in due time. In a sense, that is not the central issue. The central issue is not whether or not it is a public authority. The question is whether it has behaved consistently and compliantly with ECHR. It seems to me that if the outcome is produced by proportionate remedy, that would be entirely lawful. I am grateful to see my noble friend Lord Lester nodding his agreement.
	The ignoble question of funding, raised latterly by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is a matter on which political parties will form their own judgments, as they do on the content of their electoral literature, posters and matters of that kind. They must take their own legal advice. Of course, the Liberal Democratic Party has the infinite benefit of the gratuitous advice that will be offered by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. However, I believe that one can overdo these matters. One needs a scheme or schemes produced by political parties, which are then vetted by legal advice. It seems to me that that kind of advice will not involve enormous expense.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like to know that not only is the advice given free and gratuitously, but that the head of my chambers is a woman, that my chambers' practice manager is a woman, that most of the distinguished silks in my chambers are women, which goes to show that under an elected system in my chambers one can get the right results; and we are much better for it than other chambers, including, I imagine, the one of which the noble and learned Lord was himself a member.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was quite a small chambers, and there was probably a closed list as well!
	The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also asked for an indication of the timetable. I am happy to say that, my arm having been twisted almost from its socket by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the Committee stage will be as early as 21st January. We are not delaying and, given good will and a fair wind, we should get the Bill on to the statute book promptly. My noble friend the Chief Whip points out that there is nothing to stop parties from drawing up their tentative proposals long before Royal Assent. They would be ready for the pressure of immediate elections.
	I am grateful to noble Lords for the quality of the debate. I realise that it is in a sense inconvenient, but we were determined to complete Second Reading before we broke for Christmas, and I am glad that that has pleased the House.
	Before the Question is put formally, I wish all of us a happy and restful Christmas, not least the staff who serve us so faithfully, generously and cheerfully. And God bless Tiny Tim!

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is a very distinguished lawyer, which means that he is skilled at not altogether answering questions. Does the more reflective House of Commons that he wants entail 51 per cent of its membership being women?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, it does not, because human life—happily—is not that simple. If 49 per cent of Members of the House of Commons were women, my noble friend Lady Jay and I could live with that. Equally, if 51 per cent of the Cabinet were women, we could live with that as well, because that would be genuinely reflective. That is the way in which British society has always worked. It does not work on narrow arithmetical calculations. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Adjournment

Lord Carter: My Lords, in moving that we adjourn for a well-earned Christmas Recess, it is safe to say that we have had a more than usually testing and demanding autumn term. I cannot remember another term that began with three emergency recalls of Parliament and incorporated two quite separate emergency Bills. The political temperature has been high, our workload has been heavy and public attention has been focused on this House to a high degree. However, what strikes me is that despite all of that, the usual channels have been a haven of sanity, refreshment and cheerfulness, enlivened by the occasional game of ping-pong!
	The conventions of the House prevent me from referring to the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Roper, as my noble friends but the truth is that, although they may not technically be my political friends, they have extended real co-operation to me. Our working relationship has been happy, which I value enormously. I am most grateful to them and I wish them both a well-earned rest.
	However, I discovered that the usual channels have not cornered the market in wheeling and dealing. Our illustrious and well-liked Principal Doorkeeper, Mr Skelton, retires this Christmas after nearly a quarter of a century of service to the House. I understand that his reputation for wheeling and dealing is such that in his previous incarnation, when he had certain responsibilities for Air Force supplies, rumour has it that he struck a private deal for seven RAF aircraft—and I understand actually closed the deal! What an asset it would have been to the usual channels if his career had followed a different course. As it is, we have benefited from his services in other ways and I am sure that noble Lords will wish to record our gratitude and wish him a long and happy retirement.
	I also thank noble Lords for the long hours that they have worked and the careful attention they gave to legislation and debates in the House.
	As ever, we are all grateful to the staff in all departments who serve us so well with such little fuss and to such high standards. I trust that all noble Lords and staff will have a happy and fulfilling Christmas and that we shall all be able to spend the time that we wish with family and friends.
	When we return in January it is just possible that we may need to summon up a little more energy than we can at present. But that is for after the Recess. It gives me great pleasure to wish all noble Lords and staff a happy Christmas.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the natural seasons succeed one another with, it sometimes seems, increasing rapidity each year, but the annual pattern of the parliamentary seasons is sometimes disturbed by a general election, as happened this year. That makes for an extra-long Session and, in particular, for a long and continuous autumn term. The weight of government business, as the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms mentioned, including two emergency Bills, has added to our work. That has been gruelling for us and for all the staff, who serve us so well.
	But we have, as the noble Lord said, reached the Recess at last. For some it will not be a two-week break but the end of a phase of their lives. The noble Lord mentioned in particular Mr Skelton. He could also have mentioned Mr Felkin, Mr Biscoe and Mr Waugh who are also retiring as Doorkeepers. In each case, long service to the Queen and country in the Armed Forces has been succeeded by years of service here. Their service to us has been exemplary. Our Doorkeepers are a prominent element of the staff and are part of the special atmosphere of the House. Like all our staff, they are living proof of the saying that the way to earn respect is to respect others. They leave with our respect, with our friendship and our thanks as they march on to the next stage of their life's journey.
	I should also like to thank all who work for us and for the House in every department: the cleaners; the refreshment department, the security staff, office staff, the works staff, Hansard, and all who help us.
	Christmas is upon us. May it be a peaceful one for all our country and the world. In particular, as the Psalmist urges us, we pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and all the other troubled places in the world. To all your Lordships and all our staff, I wish a happy Christmas—and to those North Britons among us a happy Hogmanay.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words of the Government Chief Whip. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it has been to work, as part of the usual channels, with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and, in a different way with the Convenor, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The usual channels work, I believe, in some part because we have in all of the offices of the party Whips extremely good people making sure that things do work. When sometimes we make mistakes, they work out how to solve the problems. Therefore, I should like to thank the work done by Martin Gordon of the Convenor's Office who is also leaving the House at the end of this month.
	On these Benches, we are grateful to all those who help us to work more effectively in this House. I shall not give a full list, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, but mention two or three areas which have been particularly tested by the events of recent months. I think, for example, of the Public Bill Office which carried out an extraordinary task with the complicated and difficult legislation with which we have had to cope over the past two weeks. I think of the police and security staff who have provided particular assistance and reassurance to us in difficult times. They have provided that not only for us but also for all who work in the building.
	I refer to the very important work done by Black Rod's Department and in particular by the Doorkeepers. It is, of course, for all of us of particular sadness that Mr Skelton, the Principal Doorkeeper, is leaving us and that three of his colleagues, Mr Felkin, Mr Biscoe and Mr Waugh are also retiring at this time. As has been said, their service to the House is of extreme importance. We thank them for what they have done and hope that they will have happy and successful retirements.
	We on these Benches are grateful for all the help we have received and would like to wish the whole family of the House—Peers and those who work with us—a very happy Christmas and a good new year.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, on behalf of all Cross-Benchers, perhaps I may add season's greetings and best wishes for 2002. That year promises to be an interesting and challenging one for us all.
	First, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and the three Chief Whips for the help and assistance which they give me in my role as Convenor. They are very much appreciated not only by me but by the independent groups on the Cross Benches. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for the very kind words that he said about Martin Gordon, who is leaving me as my personal assistant. That was very much appreciated.
	Perhaps I may be allowed to thank in particular those who have had the additional concern for our safety and for the security of the Palace. It is never easy but was made much more demanding following the events of 11th September. I want to thank them and all the others who help us.
	In particular, I want to mention the contributions made to our safety and comfort by the soon-to-retire Principal Doorkeeper, Mr Skelton, and the Second Principal Doorkeeper, Mr Felkin. Together with Mr Waugh and Mr Biscoe, who are also leaving, or have left, they have been marvellous at their job. I endorse all that other noble Lords have said.
	I greatly admire the Doorkeepers for the cheerful and conscientious way in which they have carried out their duties, often far into the night. Mr Skelton's contribution, spanning over 24 years as a Doorkeeper, following 22 years in the Royal Air Force—that obviously stood him in very good stead—has been outstanding. I was thrilled that his long and distinguished service was recognised by the award of an MBE last year.
	He and the other departing Doorkeepers will be greatly missed. I want to congratulate Mr Kirtley and Mr Blood on their promotion in replacing Mr Skelton and Mr Felkin. I am sure that they will give to your Lordships' House the degree of leadership and commitment that we have enjoyed from their predecessors. I wish all noble Lords and the staff of your Lordships' House a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, who, as noble Lords will see, is gagged at present, he and his team of deputies would like to be associated with all the remarks that have been made about people in all parts of the House. We wish everyone a happy Christmas.
	In particular, we want to be associated with the tributes paid to Mr Michael Skelton, Mr Bill Felkin and the other two Doorkeepers. Mr Skelton is leaving us today and the others will leave us early in the new year. They have served well those sitting both in the Chair and on the Woolsack. Occasionally one hoped that they would bring us a gin and tonic rather than a glass of water. Be that as it may, we want to thank them for all that they have done for us and wish them well in their retirement. We also know that we shall be looked after by the team of mercenaries they will leave behind.
	House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty-three minutes past four o'clock until Tuesday 8th January next.